MASTER  NEGATIVE 

NO.  93-81695- 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 

WMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  Is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  **used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  Infringement. 

This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if,  in  Its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR: 


GALLAGHER,  MASON 


TITLE: 


A  CHAPTER  OF 
UNWRITTEN  HISTORY  . 


H    ■ 


PLACE: 


PHILADELPHIA 


DA  TE: 


1883 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MTCROFORM  TARHFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


1 1  ■ 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


TD:NYCG93~B914 
CC:9665  BLTram 


CP:pau 
PC:s 
MMO: 
010 
040 
050 
100  1 
245  12 


RTYP:a 
DCF:    CSC: 
INT:    GPC: 
REP: 
DM:     RR 


ST:s 
MOD: 
BIO: 
CPI:0 


FRN 
SNR 
FIC 
FSI 
COL 


0 
0 


MS:    EL:u 

ATC 

CON 

ILC 

EML 


AD:01-28~93 
U0:01~28-93 


11:0 
GEN: 


BSE 


260 
300 
610 
LOG 
QO 


20 


L:eng 
P0:1883/ 
OR:     POL: 

235054 

DLCt^cNIC{:dCStRLIN 

BX5881^:b.G3 

Gallagher,  Mason. 

A  chapter  of  unwritten  history{:h[niicrof orm] .{:bThe  Protestant  Episcopac 
y  of  the  revolutionary  patriots.  Lost  and  restored.  A  centennial  offerin 
g,rCby  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher.  .  _  ,   -  ' 

Philadelphia, {^bReformed  Episcopal  Rooms, rCl883.  / 

iv,  102  p-rc23  cm. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  U.S.A.  -  .' 

RLIN 

01-28-93 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 
REDUCTION     RATIO:      /  /  >( 


FILM     SIZE:„^3)J21KVt 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    IA'(^UA^IB    IIB 

DATE     FILMED: SzT^±3 INITIALS.  J/i>^£S> 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS,  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT  " 


c 


Association  for  Information  and  image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100. 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 


Mil 


llllilllllllllilllllllllilllMI 


Ml 


4         5        6         7        8        9       10       n 

miIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiImiiIimiIiimIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIimiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiii 


Inches 


I  I  I 


Ml 


1.0 


1.1 


1.25 


TTT 


fl 


12       13       14       15    mm 

iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


¥■'  |2.8 

m 
1-  IIP-2 

|63 

Ir  m 

23 
2.2 

2.0 

la 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

I  I  II  I 
5 


I 


MPNUFflCTURED  TO  RUM  STRNDRRDS 
BY  RPPLIED  IMRGE.  INC. 


^- 


93?.73 


QI3 


itt  the  ©ttM  of  Ucw  UovTi 


%xhxnxv^ 


Hi   (S-Uapier    of  '^niptiifcn   -S)isforg. 


The  Protestant  Episcopacy 


OF   THE 


J-lEVOLUTIONARY  PATRIOTS. 


LOST  AND  RESTORED. 


r/-^  ^Xr> 


i^HU 


T^f^<^i^h 


(^s^^'  ' 


¥ 


nxm%^ 


zzi^- 


Rev,  MASOM  GALLAGHER, 


Author  of  True  Cluu-cliiuiuislii])  A'iuflifatcd  :     The  Primitive  Eirenicon 

Iievisiou  ;i  Duly  and  Necessity. 


1  Have  Somewhat  AsainstThec  Beoan?e  Thou  II  ii=t  Lieft  Thy  First  Love.     Kemcmber  Therefore 
From  Whence  Thou  art  Fallen.  AjkI  Repent,  And  Do  The  First  Works.     .     .    .    What 
The  Spirit  Saith  Unto  TheC-hurcher;."'     Ukvelatioa,  II.  4,  5,  7. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

REFORiMED    EPISCOPAL    ROOMS. 

931    ARCH    STREET, 

1883. 


/ 


m 


Hi  (SUapiev    of  '^nwviiien   Sii&iorv. 


937.73 


(}|3 


Itt  tUt  ©itjj  of  3tw  ^ovti 


gibrarij 


The  Protestant  Episcopac 


\.r 


OF   THE 


Revolutionary  Patriots. 


LOST  AN'D  RESTORED 


Q^5         Cx-^ 


^r*', 


neriiig, 


RsY.  MASOH  GALLAGHER, 

Author  of  True  Churciiiiianship  Abjudicated  :    The  Primitive  Eirenicon 

Revision  a  Duty  and  Necessity. 


I  Have  Somewhat  Asrainst  Thee  Bocansc  Thoii  H  i?t  Left  Thy  First  Love.    Remember  Therefore 
From  Whence  Thou  art  Fallen,  And  Repent.  And  Do  The  First  Works.    .    .    .    What 
The  Spirit  Saith  Unto  The  Churches."     Revelation,  II.  4,  5, 7. 


^'• 


PHILADELPHIA: 
REFORMED    EPISCOPAL    ROOMS. 
931    ARCH    STREET, 
1883.       /  ^ 


* 

i 


WHO  ARE  RESPONSIBLE  FOR  SCHISM  ?  WHAT'THB  BISHOPS  SAY  I 


'*  Bodie:^  of  coiitessions  and  arlicles  do  imudi  liui't,  l)>^i)c*coiiiin«r  instrunicnt- 
of  separating  and  dividing  communions,  and  making  nncortain  and  unneccssarv 
propositions  a  certain  means  of  schism  and  disunion.  Whether  of  the  two  is 
the  greatest  schismatic,  he  that  nudxes  unnecessary  and  incotivenient  iuipo- 
sitions,  or  lie  that  disobeys  them,  because  he  cannot  witiiout  (loiu<r  vioh'UiM*  to 
his  conscience,  believe  them?  he  that  pai'ts  connnuniou  htn-ause  i;e  cannot. 
xvitiKMit  sin,  entertain  it?  or  they  that  have  matle  it  necessary  for  him  to  sepa- 
iat<'.  r<(piiriug  such  conditions  which  to  no  man  are  simj)ly  nec«'»arv,  or  to  liim 
in  pnrticidar  are  sinful  or  impossible?"  lUSlIOP  TAYLOli. 

"  A  schism  nmst  needs  be  theirs  whose  the  cause  of  it  is.  The  woe  runs 
full  <»ur  of  the  mouth  of  Christ  even  against  him  that  gives  the  ofleiire,  not 
nuain-t  him  that  takes  it.  He  makes  the  separation  that  "-ives  tlie  first 
eatise  oi  it,  not  he  that  makes  a  separation  from  a  just  caus<'  proeecdino." 

AKCIIIJISIIOP   LAID. 

•"*  When  a  Church  requires  unnecessary  conditions  of  communion,  then  that 
Church  must  take  <»n  itself  the  charge  of  schism.  Let  men  turn  and  wind 
themsf'lvrs  which  way  they  will,  by  the  very  same  arguments  titat  any  will 
prove  separation  from  the  Clnu'ch  of  Kome  to  be  lawful,  becjuise  sIk*  reipiircs 
uidawlul  things  or  conditions  of  he'r  commiuiion,  it  wilT  be  proved  hiwful  not 
to  eonfoi-m  to  any  suspected  or  luilawlul  j)ra(?tise  required  by  anv  Cliureh 
govcrrnncut  upon  the  same  terms,  if  the  thing  so  re(piir«'d  be,  by  a  serious  autl 
sober  iu(piirv,  judged  unwarratitaMe  1)V  a  man's  own  conscience." 

lUSllOP  STILL\(iFLEi:T. 

*'  The  transfoi-ming  of  indifferent  opinlcms  info  necessarv  articles  of  (ait-h 
Iijitii  1mm  11  the  iitsd/ia  lanrns^  or  cursed  bav  tree,  the  cause  of  all  our  brawling! 
ami  contention."  AKCIIBLSIIOP   liRAMlIALL. 

'•  Schism  is  by  none  more  loudlv  re|)rol)ate(l  than  bv  those  who  are  not  onir 
the  inim«'diate  authors  of  schism,  but  the  advocates  of  principles  tending  lo 
generate  and  perpetuate  schisms  without  end." 

AHCIIIJLSIIOP  AVIIATELEY. 

'^The  ruling  party  is  always  liberal  in  l>estowing  the  title  of  schismatics  and 
heretics  on  those  who  diHer  from  them  in  Fuaftei's  of  religion,  juid  re[)n's('iiting 
titciii  as  dangerous  to  the  State.  The  contrary  is  the  truth.  Those  who  are 
upiKrinost  and  have  the  power  are  the  men  who  do  the  mischief;  the  schis- 
matics only  <\\%'\'  and  complain,  and  are  often  tliouiiht  worthy  of  punislsnient 
for  that  reason.  BLSIIOP  SFIIPLKY. 

'•  The  stipulations  which  are  made  in  I>aj)tism  as  well  as  in  Ordinaticn,  do 
only  bind  a  man  to  the  Christian  faith,  or  to  the  faithful  dispensing  of  that 
(i(»sp<d,  and  of  those  Sacraments  of  which  he  is  made  a  minister;  so  he,  who, 
b'-ing  convinceil  ot  the  errors  and  corruj)tions  of  a  Church,  departs  from  them, 
and  goes  on  in  the  purity  or  the  Christian  Religion,  does  jjursue  the  true  eti'ect 
of  his  Baptism  and  his  Ordination  vows." 

,        BLSIIOP  BURNET  on  Art.  xix. 


•  •  •  • 

•  •    • 


•     •    •  •..*  •••  •  •  • 


•,•••     •    ••••••   ••••• 

••    •••  •••  ••   •     •  •••  •  •     • 


•  ••,•••   ••     •i«»    •  •  * 

»    ••.**••*•    "•     ••  •    •  •• 

•  ••"••••«      ••■-••  • 

•  •   •••    •    •••••*•*•    •  • 


•         •    •••     •«        •    •     •»        •• 


,    /^t  ©hapfcr    of  '^nipriffcn   -S)i9forg. 


The  Protestant  Episcopacy 


OF  TITF 


lE  VOL  UTIONA  R  Y  FA  TRIO  TS. 


'P  A  T' 


LOST  AND  RESTORED. 


€ 


cs^ 


'ixt>;f  f 


)rfttm%, 


SY 


R2V.  MASON  GALLAGHER, 

Author  of  True  Churchnianship  \'indicated  :    The  rriinitive  Eirenicon 

Revision  a  Duty  and  Necessity. 


■■'1  Have  Somewhat  Aprainst  Thee  Ilccaiise  Thou  II:ist  lA-ft  Thy  First  Love.    Remember  Therefore 

From  Whence  Thou  art  Fallen,  And  Repent.  An.l  Do  The  First  Works.    .    .    .    What 

The  Si)int  Saith  Unto  The  ('hurche.<."     Revelation,  II.  4,  5, 7. 


PHILlADELPHIA  : 

REFORMED    EPISCOPAL    ROOMS, 

931    ARCH    STREET, 

1883. 


WHO  ARE  RESPONSIBLE  POR  SCHISM  ?  WHAT^HE  BISHOPS  SAY  \ 


**  Bodies  of  confessions  and  arjicles  do  much  liurt,  l)>^i>ecomin<'^  instrumentf^ 
of  separating  and  dividing  communions,  and  making  uncv'itain  and  unnecessary 
[iropositions  a  certain  means  of  schism  and  disunion.  Wliether  of  the  two  is. 
tlie  greatest  schismatic,  he  that  makes  unnecessary  and  inconvenient  im[H)- 
sitions,  or  he  that  disobeys  them,  because  he  cannot  witliout  doin<r  vioh^nce  t<^ 
his  conscience,  believe  them?  he  tliat  parts  communion  because  he  cainiot^ 
without  siu,  entertain  it?  or  they  that  have  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  sepa- 
late,  requiring  such  conditions  which  to  no  man  are  simply  necejssary,  or  to  him 
in  particuhir  are  sinful  or  impossible?"  BISHOP  TAYLOU. 

*'  A  schism  must  needs  be  theirs  whose  the  cause  of  it  is.  The  woi;  runs 
iull  out  of  the  mouth  of  Christ  even  against  him  that  gives  the  ofience,  not 
jiL^ainst  him  that  takes  it.  He  makes  tlie  separation  that  gives  the  first 
cause  of  it,  not  he  that  makes  a  separation  from  a  just  cause  proceeding." 

AUCHBI8II0P  LAUD. 

*'  When  a  Church  requires  unnecessary  conditions  of  communion,  then  that 
Church  must  take  on  itself  the  charge  of  scliism.  Let  men  turn  and  wind 
themselves  whicli  way  they  will,  by  the  very  same  arguments  that  any  wMll 
prove  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  lawful,  because  she  recpiires 
unlawful  things  or  conditions  of  her  communion,  it  wilT  be  proved  lawful  not 
to  conform  to  any  suspecteil  or  unlawtul  practise  re(piired  by  any  Church 
government  u[)on  the  same  terms,  if  the  tiling  so  refjuirfd  be,  by  a  serious  and 
sober  inquiry,  ju<lged  unwarrantable  by  a  man's  own  conscience." 

BLSHOP  STILINGFLEET. 

"  The  transforming  of  indifferent  opinions  into  necessary  articles  of  faitJi 
hntli  b«'«Mi  tlie  insana  laurus^  or  cursed  bay  tree,  the  cause  of  all  our  brawliu" 


and  contention.' 


ARCHBLSHOP  BRAMHALL. 


'»  Schism  is  by  none  more  loudly  reprobated  than  by  those  who  are  not  only 
the  immediate  authors  of  schism,  but  the  advocates  of  principles  tending  to 
generate  and  perpetuate  schisms  without  end." 

ARCHBISHOP  WHATELP:Y. 

"  The  ruling  party  is  always  liberal  in  bestowing  the  title  of  schismatics  and 
heretics  on  those  who  differ  from  them  in  matters  of  reliijion,  and  renresfMitin"- 
tlieui  as  dangerous  to  the  State.  The  contrary  is  the  truth.  Those  who  are 
uppermost  and  have  the  power  are  the  men  who  do  the  mischief;  the  schis- 
matics only  suffer  and  complain,  and  are  often  thought  worthy  of  punishment 
for  that  reason.  BISHOP  SHIPLEY. 

*•  The  stipulations  which  are  made  in  Baptism  as  well  as  in  Ordination,  do 
only  biml  a  man  to  the  Christian  faith,  or  to  the  faithful  dispensing  of  that 
Gospel,  and  of  those  Sacraments  of  which  he  is  made  a  minister;  so  he,  who, 
being  convinced  ot  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  a  Church,  departs  from  them, 
and  goes  on  in  the  jmrity  or  the  Christian  Religion,  does  pursue  the  true  effect 
of  his  Baptism  and  his  Ordination  vows." 

I        BISHOP  BURNET  on  Art.  xix. 


r«   ••  •••    •       • 

»•  ••   •     •  •      •• 

•,•••        •      ••••••     ••••• 

*•*    *•*    •••    ••     •       •   •••   •  •       • 


•      •   •     • 


•  •  «  •   •  I 


•   •  ,•  •    •   •     ••      »•        •_    •      • 


•  •••  •      • 

•  •      •   • 


•   ••  I 


•       •  •_  • 


••      •    •    •    • 

•   •••    ••'     •   •     •«        •• 


»    /^  ©hapier    of  '^nroriifcn  -S)isforg. 


The  Protestant  Episcopacy 


OF  THE 


Revolutionary  Patriots. 


LOST  AND  RESTORED. 


Centennial 


CHoi'; 


s^s- 


Rsv.  MASOH  QALLACHER, 

Author  of  True  Churchinanship  A'indicated :    The  Primitive  Eirenicon : 

Revision  a  Duty  and  Necessity. 


I  Have  Somewhat  As«iinst  Thee  Because  Thou  Hast  Loft  Thy  First  Ijove.    Remember  Therefore 
From  Whence  Thou  art  Fallen,  And  Repent.  And  Do  The  First  Works.    .    .    .    V/hat 
The  Spirit  Saith  Unto  The  Churches."     Kevelatioit,  II.  4,  5, 7. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

REFORMED    EPISCOPAL    ROOMS, 

931    ARCH    STREET, 

1883. 


•       •  •  •••  •       •    ••    •••   •••    "•• 


t     • • ••  • 
•  •     •     • 

••       •     • 

•  •     • 

•  •     • 


,••  •••  • 

•        •   • 
"••     ••    ■ 

•  •        • 


•  •  •  .•  • 
•  ••/•• 
•    •  •. •   • 


'•• 


•  •   ••• 

•  •  •      • 

•  •  * 


•  •   • 


PREFACE 


**To  you  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  observe,  that  High  Church 
doctrines  are  not  accommodated  to  the  state  of  society,  nor 
to  the  tolerant  principles,  nor  to  the  ardent  love  of  liberty 
which  prevail  in  our  country. 

It  is  well  known  that  our  Church  was  formed  after  the 
Revolution,  with  an  eye  to  what  was  then  believed  to  be  the 
simplicity  of  the  Gospel ;  and  there  appears  to  be  some  reason 
to  regret  that  the  motives  which  then  governed  have  since 
been  less  operative." 

^Address  of  John  Jay,  first  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States^ 
to  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York, 


It, 

SI 


^ 


The  present  work,  to  which  the  notes  are  attached,  is  a  portion  of  an  address 
delivered  on  the  Ninth  Anniversary  of  the  Organization  of  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church,  to  the  K.  E.  congregation,  of  Boston,  on  December  Hd,  1882. 

After  a  membership  of  over  thirty  years  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
and  over  ten  years  instruction  in  its  seminaries,  the  author  was  ignorant  of 
some  of  tl'.e  important  facts  presented  in  this  treatise.  If  his  instructors  were 
cognizant  of  them  they  kept  the  knowledge  to  themselves.  Since  his  connection 
with  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  he  has  been  privileged  to  become  acquainted 
with  transactions  of  such  great  interest  and  importance.  Of  greater  interest, 
inasmuch  as  the  organization  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  is  thereby 
more  fully  vindicated.  Interesting  facts  connected  with  the  subject  have  l)een 
omitted  for  want  of  space. 

There  is  one  point  of  peculiar  interest  not  dwelt  upon  in  the  notes,  which  we 
are  unwilling  entirely  to  pass  over.  The  position  and  action  of  John  Jay,  the 
illustrious  Chief  Justice  of  our  Nation,  has  been  described ;  we  rejoice  to  know 
that  Washington  held  similar  views,  and  was  a  truly  Reformed  Episcopalian, 
in  full  accord  with  Mr.  Jay.  The  spirit  of  Christian  charity  and  unity  in  both 
w^as  pre-eminent.    All  may  contemplate  and  imitate  them  with  profit. 

We  read  that  "Mr.  Jay  finding,  on  his  removal  to  Bedford,  no  Episcopal 
church  in  the  vicinity,  constantly  attended  one  belonging  to  the  Presbyterians: 
nor  did  he  scruple  to  unite  with  his  fellow  Christians  of  that  persuasion  in 
commemorating  the  passion  of  their  common  Lord."    Life  I,  484. 

When  Washington  was  encamped  with  his  army  at  Morristown,  he  sent  a 
note  to  Rev.  Dr.  Johns,  the  Presbyterian  pastor,  inquiring  whether  he  would  be 
welcome  to  partake  of  the  semi-annual  Communion  in  his  church  on  the 
following  Lord's  day.  He  stated  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
England,  but  was  without  exclusive  partialities  as  a  Christian.  He  accepted  a 
cordial  invitation,  and  received  wit*!!  his  fellow  Christians  of  other  names,  the 
memorial  of  the  dying  love  of  their  common  Lord.  Sparks'  Washington,  p.  524. 
Appendix  to  McGuire's  Religious  Opinions  of  Washington. 

The  difference  in  sentiment  on  this  important  topic  is  also  manifest  in  his  reply 

to  the  address  of  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 

August  1789.  "  On  this  occasion,"  he  writes,  "  it  would  ill  become  me  to  conceal 

the  joy  I  have  felt  in  perceiving  the  fraternal  affection,  which  appears  i& 

increase  every  day  among  the  friends  of  genuine  religion.    It  affords  edifying 

prospects  indeed,  to  see  Christians  of  different  denominations,  dwell  together  m 

iii 


259938 


ill 


\ 


iv 


PREFACE. 


more  charity  and  conduct  themselves  with  respect  to  each  other,  with  a  more 
Christian-like  spirit  than  ever  they  have  done  in  any  former  age,  or  in  any  other 
nation.  George  Washington." 

When  one  considers  the  offensiveness  of  language  and  action  which  unfor- 
tunately so  largely  characterizes  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  with  respect 
to  fellowship  with  the  greater  bodies  of  Evangelical  Christians  around  them,  it 
is  refreshing  to  contemplate  the  spirit  and  action  of  these  two  greatest  and 
grandest  of  American  Episcopal  laymen.  Keformed  Episcopalians  point  their 
puny  objectors  to  their  example,  and  pray  that  they  may  have  grace  to  follow- 
in  the  steps  of  these  noble  Christian  forefathers,  who  have  left  such  a  precious 
legacy. 

In  uncovering  these  half-buried  facts  of  Revolutionary  Church  history,  while 
it  has  been  pleasant  to  descril)e  the  noble  Christian  deeds  of  the  Revolutionary 
Fathers ;  it  has  not  been  so  agreeable  to  narrate  the  causes  which  l>ave  led  to 
the  unhappy  condition  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  the  disastrous 
events  which  followed  its  radical  and  indefensible  change  of  base. 

It  has  been  necessary  in  presenting  Historic  Truth,  to  strip  from  some  noted 
names  of  the  past,  somewhat  of  the  admiration  which  has  been  bestowed  upon 
them,  but  which  has  not  been  their  rightful  due. 

Of  those  who,  on  the  other  hand,  have  deserved  higher  honor  from  posterity, 
the  facts  we  have  presented  have  rightfully  vindicated  the  reputation. 

Where  imsound  doctrines  and  erroneous  pi-actices  have  been  sustained  and 
defended,  through  the  influence  of  a  name  which  has  carried  a  weight  to  which 
it  was  not  entitled,  the  interests  of  Gospel  truth,  and  of  souls,  justifies  a  full 
presentation  of  the  facts  in  the  case. 

And  when  individuals  have  suffered  from  obloquy  and  misrepresentation; 
where  there  has  been  a  loss  of  much  that  w^as  dear  to  them,  as  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Cummins  and  liis  friends,  surely  it  was.  in  view  of  the  verdict  of  posterity, 
an  imperative  duty,  to  establish  beyond  contradiction,  that  the  separation  from 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Old  Revolutionary 
Episcopal  Church,  by  the  organization  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church ;  is 
fully  vindicated,  and  was  clearly  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth. 

The  author  has  written  with  the  deeper  interest  from  the  fact,  that  for  a 
while  he  was  beguiled  by  the  seductive  influence  of  the  exclusive,  sacerdotal 
system,  and  the  Divine  Right  delusion.  He  knows  by  personal  experience  its 
effect  upon  the  mind.  He  has  also  had  extensive  opportunity  of  witnessing  its 
pernicious  effect  upon  others. 

He  is  painfully  aware  of  the  immense  difficulty  of  impressing  by  means  of 
facts  and  logic,  minds  that  have  been  narrowed  andVarped  by  a  slavish  submis- 
sion to  authority  and  tradition.  May  the  Lord  greatly  bless  to  those  thus 
affected,  the  truth  here  presented  in  all  kindness  and  love  I 

M.  G. 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
July  4, 1883. 


W 


..     .  ., 


a 
a  3 


•  •       •  •         •      •    •'   *J    »j  >     3     J    J 

•  •      •  «         •      •    •  *  • »    a      J    I     )  3  1 
•••••••••••     »Jjj'>)        ' 


•    •.    •  •  • 


t    t    t   t       I    '3 


•  •,»••  •       •  1 

•  •«••#«  »  ■» 

»  *  t     3 


*         •     •      • 
*   *        •         •     • 


•     •  •   i     *    t, 


t    * 


•  »    •        •    •     •       I 


»   »    J  • 


3  ■> 


ANNIVERSARY  ADDRESS. 


DELIVERED  IN  BOSTON,  DECEMBER  3d,  1882. 


BY  REV.   MASON  GALLAGHER. 


I  take  great  pleasure  to-night,  on  this  the  ninth  anniversary  celebration  of 
the  organization  of  the  Retormed  Episcopal  Church,  in  meeting  with  our 
brethren  and  friends  in  this  old  historic  city,  to  which  fled  as  a  refuge,  two 
centuries  and  a  half  ago,  multitudes  of  brave  spirits,  who  abandoned  the  old 
Mother  Church  of  England,  for  causes  similar  to  those  which  led  ministers 
and  members  of  the  same  Communion,  planted  in  this  country,  to  forsake 
their  ecclesiastical  home,  and  to  reorganize,  on  December  2d,  1873,  the  same 
Church,  with  its  exclusive  priestly  hierarchy,  curbed  and  reduced ;  and  its 
liturgy,  deteriorated  and  defaced  by  the  followers  of  Archbishop  Laud,  puri- 
fied and  scripturally  revised. 

I  am  reminded,  too,  by  grand  historic  monuments,  that  the  struggle  here, 
commenced  for  civil  liberty,  which  issued  in  the  establishment  of  a  nation  of 
freemen,  who  form  the  beacon-light  to  all  the  downtrodden  and  oppressed 
people  of  the  worM ;  and  whose  moral  influence  in  behalf  of  all  that  is  desir- 
able in  national  life,  far  excels  in  the  aggregate,  that  of  any  people  upon  whom 
the  sun  has  shone.  This  is  not  a  mere  idle  boast,  for  by  every  sincere  advo- 
cate of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  America  is  admired,  resi)ected  and  loved,  in 
a  measure  greater  than  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  any  nation  of  the  past.  And 
all  this  notwithstanding  the  many  confessed  imperfections  of  a  young  Com- 
monwealth working  out  new  and  untried  principles  of  government. 

As  an  American,  the  descendant  of  an  Englishman  w^ho  struggled  and  suf- 
fered on  this  very  jrround  in  securing  these  transcendent  blessines,  I  claim  a  , 
right  here,  on  this  spot,  to  recall  the  scenes,  and  the  Crisis  with  which  thia 
city  is  so  grandly  associated;  an  era,  the  most  important  since  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  sixteenth  century,  p 

REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  SYMPATHY  WITH  ENGLISH  EXILES. 

We  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  are  in  the  closest  sympathi  with 
those  exiles  from  the  tyranny  of  Laud,  the  father  of  our  modern  Ritualism, 
which  has  compelled  us  in  like  manner  to  forsake  the  Church  of  our  affec- 
tions, when  corrupted  by  the  same  novel,  unscriptural  devices.    We  are  m 


/ 


V 


«    '     «        «     «  t      •      ,      •      • 


I        •       • 


I      t 


•  • 


•    •       •  •   • 


«    i  (   C     ( 


t    c 


,  1  •    *  •  •  • 

•  •      •  •     • 
•    •         •      • » 


••  • 

•     i 


2  •     .   •  ^jj^i^kr^ary  ade»ress. 

sympathy,  also,  with  bje'.tjrgty?  >a^^  their  descendants,  who  then  dared,  in 
weakness,  to  defy  a  mighly  dpptesSon'antJ  blessed  by  Providence,  have  secured 
dn  these  shores,  forever,  freedom  from  tyrants  in  Church  and  State. 

Little  thanks  to  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  Laud  and  his  successors,  for 
those  results,  and  for  the  blessings  which  we  now  enjoy! 

That  ministry,  almost  to  a  man,  took  part  with  the  enemies  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. Tlie  doctrine  of  the  Divine  right  of  Bishops,  was  first  allowed  among 
professed  Protestants,  by  King  James  I,  in  return  for  the  acknowledgment  by 
Bancroft,  Laud,  and  others,  of  the  Divine  right  of  Kings.  Both  claims  are  in 
their  intrinsic  character,  the  inherent  and  essential  antagonists  of  the  Divine 
rights  of  the  people. 

They  have  no  legitimate  sympathy  with  the  principles  and  results  of  the 
American  Revolution.  They  must  be  watched  wherever  they  are  embraced, 
and  carried  out  in  action;  whether  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  in  any  other 
Hierarchical  organization. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF   DIVINE  RIGHT  DANGEROUS. 

The  bond  which  links  together  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  same 
ecclesiastical  organization  wliich  has  embraced  this  unreasonable  and 
unscriptural  doctrine,  of  the  exclusive  divine  right  of  an  order  of  avowed 
priests,  with  sole  power  to  convey  spiritual  gifts  relating  to  the  future 
eternal  state,  is  closer  far  than  that  which  binds  a  man  to  the  civil  state. 
It  is  of  an  undefined,  mysterious  nature,  breeds  superstition,  discourages 
independence  of  thought,  and  is  the  natural  foe  of  free  institutions,  however 
it  may  disguise  itself.  Fully  developed  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  is  the  ob- 
ject of  anxiety  and  constant  vigilance  on  the  part  of  the  governments  of  the 
old  world,  and  in  this  land  forms  the  source  of  the  greatest  danger  to  our  lib- 
erties. Any  institution  among  us,  which  born  out  of  this  Papal  Corporation, 
has  retained  ita  leading  features;  an  absolving  priesthood,  and  the  exclusive 
Divine  ricrht  of  Bishops,  with  the  denial  of  a  ministry  and  sacraments  to 
other  Protestant  Cimrches,  must  necessarily  remain  a  sect  with  limited  num- 
bers and  influence,  spurned  by  Rome,  and  the  object  of  distrust  to  the  Com- 
munions with  whom  it  arrogantly  refuses  fellowship. 

ITS   BANEFUL   INFLUENCES. 

The  religious  strife  and  separations  it  occasions  in  households  where 
*  Christian  unity  should  be  especially  nurtured ;  the  false  views  of  Chris- 
tian truth  it  necessarily  engenders;  the  disrespect  it  casts  upon  the 
work  of  ttie  Holy  Spirit  through  the  agency  of  devoted  and  successful 
Christian  teachers,  whose  position  and  office  it  asperses  and  contemns, 
while  ascribing  unreasonable  and  false  prerogatives  and  gifts  to  men 
often  vastly  inferior  in  mental  and  moral  qualitiea;  are  enough  to  impel 
men  whose  religion  is  based  upon  the  Word  of  God  alone,  to  reject  and 
oppose  this  parasite  of  Protestantism,  the  creation  of  the  Stuarts,  and  of 
Archbishop  Laud.    Its  proper  home  is  in  a  monarchical  country.    In  commu- 


ANNIVERSARY   ADDRESS.  * 

nities  where  a  social  and  ecclesiastical  Caste  is  allowed,  based  on  something 
besides  brains,  character,  or  learning,  it  may  flourish;  but  in  a  land  where  the 
Divine  right  of  Kings  has  been  spurned  and  rejected,  the  Divine  right  of 
Bishops,  with  its  offensive  and  dangerous  adjuncts,  has  no  legitimate  place; 
and  as  an  American  citizen,  and  a  sincere,  loyal  Protestant,  I  honestly  and 
openly  resist  it. 

THE  LAUDEAN  BISHOPS  THE  CAUSE  OF  THE  PURITAN  EXODUS. 

In  divine  Providence,  we  owe  to  the  tyranny  of  Laud  and  the  Stuarts,  the 
freedom  and  the  independence  which  now  we  so  greatly  enjoy. 

If  the  noble  men  whom  these  tyrants  subjected  to  prison,  to  fine,  to  mutila- 
tion, and  other  forms  of  persecution,  even  to  death,  had  not  been  driven  from 
the  mother  country,  and  their  ecclesiastical  home,  never  would  there  have 
been  reared  in  this  land,  a  people  willing  and  able  to  fight  for  seven  years,  as 
the  descendants  of  the  Pilgrims  did,  for  the  privileges  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  which,  thanks  to  God  and  to  these  patriots,  we  are  privileged  now  to 

possess. 

In  an  able  article  on  **The  Causes  which  drove  the  Puritans  from  England," 
the  New  Enylander  for  November,  1882,  says: 

"It  was  the  bishops  wlio  drove  the  Puritans  into  Holland;  it  was  the  bishops 
who  hung  the  sword  of  Damocles  over  them  as  They  sailed  to  Plymouth;  it 
was  the  bishops  who  compelled  the  founding  of  Xew  England,  and  the  great 

Puritan  exodus. 

"When  fifty  years  afterwards  Archbishop  Tillotson  and  other  bishops  of 
England  expressed  with  such  energy  to  Increase  Mather,  their  just  resentment 
to  the  injury  which  had  been  done  to  the  first  planters  of  New  England,  the 
old  Puritan  exclaimed:  'If  such  had  been  the  bishops  there  had  never  been  a 

New  England.' " 

We  may  with  equal  justice  remark:  "If  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
had  possessed  such  bishops  as  Tillotson,  Burnet,  Stillingfleet,  Tennison,  Patrick, 
and  their  associates.  Bishop  Cummins  and  his  friends  would  not  have  been 
compelled  to  sever  their  ecclesiastical  ties,  and  to  organize  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church. 

THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  THE  NON-EPISCOPAL   CLERGY. 

The  same*  spirit  which  led  the  Puritans,  under  Elizabeth  and  James,  to 
struggle  and  suffer  for  freedom  of  conscience,  and  for  the  unadulterated 
truths  of  Holy  Scripture,  animated  the  Congregational,  Presbyterian,  Dutch, 
and  Lutheran  pastors  of  the  Revolution,  and  were  it  not  for  their  incessant, 
stirring,  patriotic  appeals  from  the  pulpit  and  the  rostrum,  and  their  presence 
in  the  army,  where  they  both  fought  and  prayed,  I  feel  assured  that  the  War 
of  Independence  would  never  have  issued  in  the  success  of  the  Colonists.  I 
am  aware  that  there  were  noble  exceptions  to  the  course  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Clergv  in  espousing  the  cause  of  the  mother  country.  The  names 
^jf  Bishops   Wnite   and    Provoost,   Dr.    William    Smith   of   Philadelphia, 


4  ANNIVERSARY   ADDRESS. 

Peter  Muhlenberj?,  and  Dr.  Griffith,  (Bishop-elect)  of  Virginia,  and  Robert 
Smith  of  South  Carolina,  afterwards  a  bishop,  were  foremost  among  those  who 
sympathized  with  the  struggles  of  the  patriot  army;  while  Bishop.  Seabury  of 
Connecticut,  and  his  disloyal  friends  were  exiled  or  imprisoned  for  giving  aid 
and  comfort  to  the  oppressors  of  our  grandsires. 

THE  PRAYEB   BOOK  OF   1785  THE  WORK  OF  THE  PATRIOTS  OF  THE  REVO- 
LUTION. 

But  it  is  eminently  fitting  for  us  Reformed  Episcopalians  to  remember, 
and  for  me,  on  this  anniversary  occasion,  to  remind  you,  in  this  city  of  Revo- 
lutionarv  fame,  that  Bishops  White  and  Provoost,  with  Dr.  Wm.  Smith,  and 
Dr.  Griffiths,  were  among  the  fraraers  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785,  (a  Book 
associated  with  the  names  of  William  III.,  and  his  galaxy  of  Reforming 
bishops,)  on  whose  principles  this  country  first  received  its  Episcopacy,  and  on 
which  our  Communion,  the  true,  legitimate,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is 
based;  while  Bishop  Seabury,  a  non-juror  in  principle  aud  orders,  and  a 
pensioner  of  the  British  Government  till  his  death,  has  impressed  his  principles 
cf  Episcopal  and  Sacerdotal  exclusiveness,  and  of  Sacramental,  mechanical 
grace,  upon  the  Liturgy  and  Rites  of  the  Church  we  have  been  forced  to 
abandon. 

That  there  is  a  noble  body  of  sound  and  intelligent  Christian  men  still  re- 
maining in  that  Church,  we  well  know;  but  that  they  are  tolerated,  and  that 
they  have  received  fair  and  courteous  treatment  in  Conventions,  of  late,  and 
only  within  a  brief  period,  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  there  is  with  us,  for  them 
at  all  times,  a  welcome,  safe,  and  peaceful  haven  and  retreat  from  their  incon- 
sistent and  uncomfortable  alliance  with  men  in  whose  principles  they  have  no 
confidence,  and  with  whose  meiisures  they  have  no  sympathy.  Sooner  or  later 
the  separation  of  these  antagonistic  elements  must  occur.  We  rejoice  that 
the  main  work  has  been  accomplished,  and  though  the  inauguration  of  the 
firsL  pure.  Liturgical,  Episcopal  Reformation  occasioned  the  early  demise  of 
our  beloved  leader,  who  had  the  grace  and  courage  to  effect  it,  it  is  done  for 
all  time;  to  the  glory  of  God,  in  the  spread  of  the  truth,  and  to  the  great  com- 
fort and  joy  of  many  of  the  Lord's  children. 

THE   PATRIOTIC    OPPOSITION    TO    HIGH    CHURCH    EPISCOPACY,  AND   ESPE- 
CIALLY  TO  BISHOP  SEABURY. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  fear  of  the  Establishment  of  an  Episcopal  Hier- 
archy on  these  shores,  was  one  of  the  causes  which  led  the  Colonists  to  desire 
separation  from  the  mother  country.  The  inherent  nature  of  this  intolerant 
system  was  thoroughly  appreciated  by  the  descendants  of  those  who  had  so 
greatly  suffered  by  it. 

The  diocese  of  South  Carolina  united  with  the  other  dioceses  on  the  con- 
dition that  no  bishop  should  be  placed  over  them.  It  afterwards  elected 
Robert  Smith,  who  had  served  as  private  in  the  siege  of  Charleston. 

The  conventions  of  Virginia  were  at  first  presided  over  by  a  layman. 

It  is  well  known,  also,  thnt  John  Jay  and  James  Duane,  with  Provoost  and 
others,  earnestly  endeavored  to  prevent  all  eccl;?siastical  connection  with. 


T 


ANNIVERSARY  ADDRESG.  O^ 

Bishop  Seabury  after  the  Revolution.  But  these  wise  patriots  were  over- 
powered by  the  insane  passion  for  uniformity,  and  a  hollow,  unscriptural 
unity,  which  has  been  the  bane  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

The  Seabury  leaven  of  Sacerdotalism,  exclusive  Divine  right  and  sacramen- 
tal grace,  was  allowed  admittance.  The  Prayer  Book  of  1785  was  essentially  ^ 
changed.  The  Romish  alterations  of  Elizabeth  and  Charles  were  reintro- 
duced.  The  leaven  has  spread  through  the  lump,  and  most  significantly, 
though  White  survived  Seabury  a  generation,  the  latter  has  thoroughly  sup- 
planted  the  patriotic  Low  Churchman,  as  the  acknowledged  Father  of  that 
Church,  among  those  who  control  and  direct  its  affairs,  and  wield  predomi- 
nating influence  therein. 

It  is,  moreover,  worthy  of  note,  that  in  the  city  where  the  patriotic  White^ 
and  Smith  labored,  our  Church  has  been  most  kindly  welcomed,  and  has 
widely  flourished;  while  in  the  metropolis  where  the  principles  of  Seabury  and 
his  followers  have  long  had  predominating  influence,  the  soil  has  been  unfav- 
orable and  uncongenial  to  the  spread  of  a  legitimate.  Reformed  Episcopacy. 
That  in  this  community,  so  long  favored  by  the  influence  or  the  Apostolic 
Griswold,  there  is  a  future  of  great  prosperity  to  our  Communion,  there  ia 
ample  reason  for  most  encouraging  hope. 

By  a  singular  coincidence,  the  grandson  and  namesake  of  Bishop  Seabury, 
an  honest,  able  and  learned  sacerdotalist,  more  than  any  other  man,  impressed 
the  principles  of  Laud  and  the  non-jurors  upon  the  minds  of  his  generation, 
as  those  principles  have  been  revived  and  powerfully  set  forth  by  Newman, 
Pusey,  and  other  writers  of  the  Oxford  Tracts.  At  the  time  the  writer  was  a 
student  at  the  General  Theological  Seminary  in  New  York;  the  friend  and 
biographer  of  Bishop  White;  and  the  most  able  and  voluminous  commentator 
on  the  Scriptures  which  his  Church  has  produced,  were  the  Senior  Professors. 
But  they  were  powerless  to  resist  the  overflowing  tide  of  the  Oxford  delusion 
under  its  able  American  champion.  Four  of  the  writer's  classmates,  with 
other  students,  joined  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  money  donated  by  departed 
benefactors  for  the  education  of  youth  in  Protestant  principles,  has  been  there 
largely  diverted  in  the  sending  forth  religious  teachers,  the  open  opponents 
and  aspersers  of  the  doctrines  of  the  English  Martyrs. 

In  like  manner  the  munificent  bequest  of  a  member  of  the  Protestant 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  has  been  perverted,  in  the  same  city,  to  the  open, 
public  propagation  of  semi-Romish  doctrines,  which  would  have  been  most 
offensive  and  abhorrent  to  the  benevolent  departed  donor. 

Such  sad  perversions  of  religious  trusts  must  necessarily  check  bequests  on 
the  part  of  Protestant  Episcopalians,  lor  they  know  not  but  that  their 
legacies  may  be  used  in  the  process  of  instilling  the  most  unscriptural  views 
iu  the  minds  of  their  descendants,  and  in  the  sanctuaries  where  they  have 
themselves  worshiped. 

TRUTH  NECESSARY  FOR   UNITY  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  REFORMERS. 

This  system  blossomed  into  Ritualism,  allowed  and  extensively  embraced  in 
the  Protestant  ilpiscopal  Church,  resisting  all  efforts  to  suppress  or  eject  it. 


^  ANNIVERSARY   ADDRESS. 

has  compelled  us,  as  true  Protestants,  holding  the  doctrines  of  the  British 
Reformers,  to  come  out  and  sever  our  connection  with  a  religious  Body  thus 
proved  powerless  to  oppose  error. 

At  much  cost,  but  with  the  approbation  of  cmscience,  and  fidelity  to  the 
Truth,  the  whole  Truth,  and  nothing  but  the  Truth,  here  we  stand.  We 
could  not  do  otherwise.  We  commit  the  matter  to  Him  who  has  led  us.  '*If 
this  counsel  or  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  naught;  but  if  it  be  of 
God,  ye  can  not  overthrow  it." 

That  the  principles  of  the  English  Martyred  Reformers  were  in  entire  an- 
tagonism to  those  which  have  pervaded  tue  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  with 
respect  to  the  comparative  importance  of  unity  and  sound  doctrine,  is  clear. 
Said  Latimer  to  Ridley:  ^'Hilary  saith.  *The  name  of  peace  is  beautiful,  and 
the  opinion  of  unity  is  fair;  but  who  doubteth  that  to  be  the  true  and  only 
peace  of  the  Church  which  is  Cnrist?'  St,  Paul,  when  he  requireth  unity,  he 
joineth  straight  withal  ^accordiag  to  Jesus  Christ,'  no  further.  Diotrephes, 
now  of  late,  did  ever  harp  upon  Unity,  Unity.  *  Yea,'  quoth  I,  *but  in  verity, 
not  in  Popery.  Better  is  a  diversity  than  a  unity  in  Popery.'  "  Ridley  testi- 
fies: "As  for  unicy,  the  truth  is,  before  God  I  do  believe  it  and  embrace  it,  so 
it  be  with  verity,  and  joined  to  our  Head,  Christ,  aad  such  one  as  Paul 
speaketh  of  saying,  'one  faith,  one  God,  one  baptism.'  " 

John  Bradford,  of  equal  fame,  writes:  '^The  Word  alloweth  not  the  more 
part,  but  the  better  part.  It  alloweth  not  unity  except  it  be  in  verity.  It 
alloweth  no  obedience  to  any  which  can  not  be  done  without  disobedience  to 
God." 

Such  views  are  altogether  antagonistic  to  the  course  of  a  Communion  which 
allows  the  views  of  Colenso  at  the  one  extreme,  and  those  of  Pusey  at  the 
other,  and  all  views  internaediate,  to  re-echo  from  her  pulpits;  while  those 
who  hold  to  the  plain  doctrines  asserted  by  these  martyrs,  are  held  in  light 
estimation,  and  for  years  have  been  barely  tolerated. 

THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CIIUKCH    UTTERLY  REJECTS     THE    DOCTRINE 

OF  EPISCOPAL   DIVINE  RIGHT. 

Our  Reformed  Episcopal  Caurch  has  utterly  abandoned  and  cast  out  this 
excrescence  on  the  Church  of  an  Episcopacy  of  exclusive  Divine  Right,  which 
logically  developed  into  the  Papacy,  produced  there  the  Inquisition  and  other 
abominations,  and  which,  nurture!  in  the  Church  of  England,  exiled  the 
Puritans;  drove  out  of  their  pulpits  two  thousand  able,  devoted,  conscientious 
ministers;  persecuted  the  Methodists,  and  compelled  them  to  organize  that 
great  and  successful  Communion  which  now  outnumbers  the  Church  they 
were  forced  to  leave,  and  has  a  far  brighter  prospect  for  the  future.  Here 
reproduced  in  this  land,  the  same  Episcopal  Communion  has  cultivated 
Church  exclusiveness;  suppressed  all  attempts  at  simple  scriptural  reform; 
discouraged  sympathy  and  union  with  Protestant  Churches;  recognized  the 
ministry  of  liome,  while  utterly  ignoring  that  of  the  Reformed  Communions; 


ANNIVERSARY   ADDRESS.  7 

favored  a  return  to  Pre-reformation  principles,  and  after  imperiously  and 
flatly  rejecting  the  petitions  of  numbers  of  its  most  intelligent,  devout  and 
respected  adherents  to  return  to  its  original  principles,  compelled  them  at  last 
to  sever  their  long  and  intimate  Church  ties,  and  go  out,  like  Abraham,  into  a 
new  home,  followed  by  the  deposing  curse  of  their  harsh,  unsympathizing 
parent,  but  led  by  conscience  and  the  Spirit  of  God  into  fairer  pastures  and  by 

stiller  waters. 

As  one  who  has  undergone  this  experience,  after  earnestly  serving  that 
Communion  for  twenty-seven  years,  I  feel,  dear  brethren,  a  deep  sympathy 
with  the  spirits  of  the  past,  who  felt  much  as  we  have  felt  and  suffered 
much  as  we  have  suffered.  Truly,  where  our  afflictions  have  abounded,  our 
comforts  and  joys  have  much  more  abounded.  Brethren,  we  have  had  our 
mission  to  accomplish,  and  I  thank  God  heartily  that  He  has  counted  us 
worthy  thus  to  labor  and  suffer  for  the  truth;  to  be  exposed  to  obloquy  and 
contempt;  to  encounter  the  sneer  and  the  sarcasm  of  those  with  whom  we  were 
formerly  associated.  To  belong  to  a  religious  institution  in  this  age,  where 
there  is  any  self-flenial  deynanded  or  2yersecution  endured,  is  truly  a  mark  of 
Divine  favor;  what  are  we  that  God  should  bless  us  so  highly?  I  have  con- 
sidered, when  bishops  claiming  exclusive  Divine  right,  have  likened  us  to 
refugees  in  the  Cave  of  Adullam,  and  when  our  noble  leader  was  the  object  of 
calumny  and  vituperation,  that  the  hunted  chief  of  that  band  of  outcasts  was 
tke  Lord's  Anointed,  and  came  forth  in  due  time  to  claim  and  receive  the 
crown  of  the  nation?  Let  every  Reformed  Episcopalian  look  back  on  such 
scenes  in  the  Church's  history,  take  courage,  be  comforted,  endure  and 
march  on  to  final,  assured  victory. 

DEPOSITION    FROM    THE    MINISTRY    FOR    CONSCIENCE'    SAKE    BORROWED 

FROM    THE  PAPAL  COMMUNION. 

It  is  right  here  to  affirm  that  those  who  established  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church  had  faithfully  served  the  Communion  which  they  were  forced  to 
leave.  In  attainments  and  efficient  work  they  were  fully  up  to  the  average  of 
their  former  associates,  and  candid  men  among  the  latter  have  publicly  ac- 
knowledged the  fact.  The  strange  character  of  the  religious  organization  here 
arraigned  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  your  speaker,  after  orgainizing 
three  parishes,  and  building  as  many  churches;  and  after  having  gathered  the 
largest  Sunday-school  in  his  diocese,  and  presented  the  largest  class  for  Con- 
firmation known  in  its  history;  unchanged  in  his  doctrine,  unassailed  in  repu- 
tation, was  with  his  brethren  piihlicly  dewsed  from  the  ministry.  And  for 
what  cause?  For  simply  doing  what  the  Founder  of  Christianity  and  the  Re- 
formers of  Eugland  did:  conscientiously  seeking  to  purify  and  reform  the 
Church  which  they  loved  and  had  faithfully  served,  appealing  to  the  Word  of 
God  alone.  They  ceased  to  co-operate  with  those  who,  uncharitably  and 
persistently,  refused  to  effect  a  scriptural  reformation.  In  all  these  cases  of 
unjust  treatment  the  spirit  was  the  samt*.    Church  organization  and  Church 


\ 


8 


ANNIVERSARY   ADDRESS. 


ANNIVERSARY   ADDRESS. 


9 


forms  were  apparently  regarded  as  more  important  than  conscieni  ions  scruples 
or  adherence  to  God's  Word.  In  none  of  these  cases  were  the  ecclesiastical 
censures  approved  and  ratified  in  heaven;  and  it  is  sufficient  compensation 
for  the  great  trials  incident  to  such  conscientious  acts,  that  Reformers  now 
are  in  full  sympathy  with  those  who  have  preceeded  them.  For  history  and 
eternity  will  assuredly  justify  their  action.  We  joyfully  abide  their  verdict. 
But  what  of  the  position  of  those  who,  by  ecclesiastical  fellowship,  counten- 
ance ecclesiastical  oppressors  in  their  unchristlike,  uncharitable  treatment  of 
their  brethren?  Countenancing  by  organic  connection  those  whose  doctrines 
they  repudiate  as  unscriptural,  and  by  remaining  in  such  relation,  participants 
in  the  action  by  which  men  whom  they  acknowledge  as  preachers  of  a  sound 
Gospel,  are  publicly  stripped  by  a  spiteful  and  inane  enactment  of  their 
ministerial  commission. 

No  professed  Protestant  Communion  but  the  Protestant  Episcopal  assumes 
to  deprive  of  ministerial  authority,  those  who  depart  from  its  ministry  to 
other  folds. 

It  is  one  of  the  Roman  Catholic  peculiarities  which  this  denomination  has 
persistently  retained. 

In  marked  Christian  contrast  to  this  presumptuous  proceeding,  Bisliop 
Cummins  dismissed  a  Protestant  Episcopal  minister  who  joined  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church,  when  he  returned  to  his  former  fold, with  kind  and  court- 
eous words.  The  Church  of  England  has  wisely  refrained  from  such  deposi- 
tions. While  such  vindictive  acts  have  no  validity  and  are  generally  esteemed 
for  what  they  are  worth,  they  are  to  be  regretted  for  their  effect  in  increasing 
prejudice  against  the  Gospel. 

The  P.  E.  Church  presumes  to  depose  from  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of 
God,  not  simply  from  its  exercise  within  their  own  bounds,  I  have  known 
officials  to  seek  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  others  against  Bishop  Cummins  and 
his  friends  on  the  ground  of  their  being  deposed  ministers.  It  is  the  fear  of 
this  impious  and  futile  action  which  has  prevented  some  timid  minds  from 
joining  our  Communion. 

BOSTON  A   GRAND  FIELD  FOR  THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

I  am  not  suprised  at  the  advance  of  our  Church  in  this  city^  under  the  ac- 
ceptable and  faithful  pastorate  of  our  beloved  brother.  The  seed  was  sown 
here  by  a  wise  and  godly  man.  Brother  Cutler  laid  the  foundations  deep  and 
strong  in  faith  and  prayer,  and  he,  who  now  as  a  wise  master  builder  is 
continuing  the  work  in  this  grand  field,  is  enjoying  the  savor  of  the  influence 
of  that  man  of  God  whose  unflinching  testimony  in  behalf  of  this  Church;  whose 
severance,  in  his  declining  years,  of  his  deeply  rooted  ecclesiastical  ties;  and 
whose  treatment  by  that  Communion,  when  refusal  was  extended  to  his 
funeral  rites  in  the  church  edifice  where  he  had  officiated  with  the  Divine 
blessing  for  a  generation;  preaches  a  sermon  in  behalf  of  the  necessity  of  our 
work  and  our  providential  mission,  more  forcible  and  convincing  than  any 


words  that  I  can  utter.  Strengthened  by  the  sympathy  and  praye  rs  of  so  many 
devoted  Christians  of  all  names,  with  the  enjoyment  of  the  Divine  blessing,  this 
Church  will  surely  advance  to  its  completion,  and  ere  long  the  top  stone  will 
be  laid  with  shoutings  of  "  grace,  grace  unto  it." 


THE  MYSTERIES  AND  MISERIES  OF    PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  DEPOSITION. 

Note.— When  the  bishop,  according  to  tlie  Canon,  has  authoritatively  erased 
the  name  of  a  clergyman  from  the  list  in  the  presence  of  Avitnesses,  and  thus 
officially  deposed  him,  as  far  as  his  Communion  possesses  the  power,  from  the 
ministry  of  the  Church  of  God,  information  is  forwarded,  to  every  other  bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

The  Canon  reads,  XXXIX,  1832:  "  Wiien  any  minister  is  degraded  from  the 
Holy  Ministry,  he  is  degraded  therefrom  entirely,  and  not  from  a  higher  to  a 
lower  order  of  the  same.  Deposition,  displacing  and  all  like  expressions,  are  the 
same  as  degradation.    No  degraded  minister  shall  be  restored  to  the  ministry. 

Wlienever  a  clergyman  shall  be  degraded,  the  bishop  wlio  pronounces  sentence 
shall,  without  delav,  give  notice  thereof  to  every  minister  and  vestry  in  the 
diocese,  and  also  to  all  the  bishops  of  this  Church,  and  where  there  is  no  bishop 
to  the  standing  committee." 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  Canon  that  the  act  of  deposition  is  widely 
published.  In  addition,  the  transaction  is  announced  in  the  bishop's  annual 
addre'>s 

It  matters  not  whetlier  the  clergyman  in  his  announcement  of  his  determina- 
tion to  withdraw  from  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  ministry,  at  the 
same  time  states  that  he  acts  from  conscientious  reasons,  and  designs  exercising 
his  ministry  in  another  communion;  the  deposition  is  absolute. 

One  bishop  speaks  of  it :  "  as  the  inflicting  of  the  irrevocable  sentence  of  dis- 
placing or  degradation  from  the  ministry." 

The  Canon  appears  to  be  framed  with  the  design  of  preventing  all  such 
conscientious  acts,  by  the  stringency  of  its  conditions  and  the  fearful  severity  of 
its  language.  It  necessarily  acts  with  great  power  on  the  common  timidity  of 
the  clerical  mind,  under  Episcopal  supervision. 

The  writer  when  withdrawing  from  the  Protestant  Episcopal  ministry  in  1871, 
gave  his  reasons  in  full  for  his  action,  and  his  design  to  fulfill  his  ministry  in  a 
field  outside  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Connection. 

His  bishop  courteously  requested  him  to  give  the  matter  a  week's  further  con- 
sideration. But  as  he  had  patiently  waited  for  years  for  that  Communion  to 
remove  the  burdens  which  had  been  weighing  for  a  long  period  on  many  con- 
sciences, and  the  prospect  of  relief  was  entirely  hopeless,  the  step  was  taken 
with  the  fullest  deliberation,  and  the  experience  of  twelve  years  has  fully 
satisfied  him  that  it  was  wisely  done. 

Recently,  while  looking  at  the  Catalogue  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary 
where  he  received  his  education  for  the  ministry,  the  writer  noticed  among  the 
names  of  the  alumni,  his  own,  with  these  words  appended,  "Deposed  in  New 
York  1871."  Two  of  his  class-mates,  who  joined  the  Church  of  Rome,  have  the 
same  addenda  to  their  names,  and  two  others  of  the  alumni,  one  now  a  bishop  of 
Rome,  the  other  a  Roman  vice-chancellor.  He  noticed  also  two  "  deposed" 
alumni  who  had  joined  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Communion,  and  whose  career 
since  their  deposition,  has  been  largely  attended  with  the  Divine  blessing  on  their 
ministry.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  to  the  reader  for  what  cause  the  deposing 
curse  was  inflicted,  whether  for  carrying  out  the  Seminary  teaching,  logically, 


W-i. 


I. 


10 


AXNIV'EKSAKV    ADDJlEiiiS. 


and  landing  in  Rome;  or  for  ronscioTitious  reai:ons  joining  a  thoroughly  Re- 
formed (,'ommunion  ;  or,  for  moral  ilelimiuencies. 

The  commonest  principles  of  justice  and  (charity  find  ro  place  in  the  case  of 
any  who  leave  the  Protestant  Episcopal  ministiy.  That  Communion  acts  upon 
the  principle  and  with  the  spirit  of  the  mother  Church  of  Rome,  from  which  it 
came  out,  and  from  whose  medieval  errors  it  has  not  yet  freed  itself.  One  who 
had  abandoned  the  Protestant  Episc()pal  ministry  was  asked  the  reason  for  his 
action,  "Because,"  he  said, ''  the  conscience  is  not  cultivated  in  that  Commu- 
nion." This  was  a  very  severe  char^'e,  but  entirely  just  with  respect  to  the 
course  of  that  Church  in  the  matter  of  deposition.  For  it  practically  teaches 
that  it  is  a  greater  offence  to  exercise  ones  ministry  in  another  Communion, 
with  a  pure  conscience,  than  to  remain  a  Protestant  Epis(X)pal  clergyman  witli 
that  Divine  monitor  silenced  with  respect  to  errors  of  confessed  magnitude. 
The  inference  too  may  be  justly  drawn  from  such  ecclesiastical  action  that  the 
call  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  of  less  importance,  and 
of  weaker  obligation,  than  that  of  the  (liurch  "through  its  human  ollicials. 

Thankful  should  we  be  that  tliere  is  at  last  a  Church  which,  while  it  is  Litur- 
gical and  Episcopal,  ir.  at  the  same  time  Scriptural,  Charitable,  Protestant  and 
Free! 


Notes  to  Anniversary  Address  Delivered   in  the   Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church,  Boston,  December  Sd,  1882. 

The  Protestant  Episcopacy  of  the 
Revolutionary  Patriots. 


BY  REV.  MASON  GALLAGHER. 


It  has  been  seen  from  what  has  preceded  that  the 
circumstances  attending  the  organization  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  1785,  were  of  deep 
interest  from  the  character  of  the  men  who  were  en- 
gaged in  the  work.  Their  enterprise  was  hallowed  by 
the  savor  of  the  Kevolution  in  which  they  had  taken  a 
prominent  part,  and  had  greatly  suffered. 

That  their  task  was  delicate  and  difficult  all  know. 
With  few  exceptions  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land had  taken  an  active  part  in  behalf  of  the  mother 
country.  Most  of  them  had  been  compelled  to  leave 
the  country.  The  few  who  remained,  protected  by 
English  bayonets,  had  written  and  preached,  and 
prayed  for  the  success  of  George  III.  Here  and  there 
was  one  w^ho  realized  the  nature  of  the  struggle,  and 
the  vital  principles  of  liberty  and  justice  which  were 
involved.  These  at  the  risk  of  an  ignominious  death, 
stood  firmly  with  their  ministerial  brethren  of  other 
denominations,  and  largely  aided  in  securing  the  grand 

result. 

And  though  the  good  work  they  effected  in  establish- 
ing their  Church  on  free  and  broad  and  liberal  prin- 
ciples, was  overthrown  by  the  admission  in  later  years 
of  the  men  who  had  labored  to  keep  the  colonists  in  a 
disgraceful  submission  to  a  tyrannical  King  and  Par- 
liament, still  it  is  our  part  as  free,  enlightened 
American  citizens,  and  intelligent  Christians,  to  honor 
their  memory,  and  as  Keformed  Episcopalians,  a  cen- 
tury afterwards,  to  take  up  their  work  and  to  carry  it 
forward  to  a  successful  and  beneficial  result.  Claiming 
as  we  do,  to  hold  their  principles  as  opposed  to  those 

who  sympathized  with  them,   neither  politically  nor 

(11) 


( 


12 


NOTES. 


ecclesiastically;  it  is  our  part  to  recall  the  services  they 
rendered  as  Christians  and  patriots. 

THE  MOST  PROMINENT  ACTORS. 

The  clergymen  pre-eminent  in  the  work  were  Dr. 
William  Smith  and  Bishop  White  of  Philadelphia, 
Bishop  Samuel  Provoost  of  New  York,  Dr.  David 
Griffith,  Bishop  elect  of  Virginia;  Bishop  Robert  Smith 
of  South  Carolina;  and  Dr.  Charles  H.  Wharton  of 
Delaware. 

Among  the  Laity  were  James  Duane  and  John  Jay 
of  New  York;  Richard  Peters  and  Francis  Hopkinson 
of  Pennsylvania;  John  Page  and  Cyrus  Griffin  of 
Yirginia;  Charles  Pinckney  and  John  Rutledge  of  South 
Carolina.    These  are  national  and  imperishable  names. 

There  were  others  of  distinction:  Edward  Shippeu 
and  Thomas  Hartley  of  Pennsylvania;  David  Brearley 
and  John  Rutherford  of  New  Jersey;  Jacob  Reed  and 
John  Parker  of  South  Carolina;  Sykes  of  Delaware. 
These  and  other  noble  spirits  were  associated  with  the 
grand  Revolutionary  heroes  I  have  enumerated,  in 
organizing  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  as  a  truly 
free,  Scriptural,  American  Communion. 

PREDOMINANCE  OF  LAYMEN. 

It  is  eminently  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  the  four 
primary  Conventions  in  which  Bishop  Seabury  was 
neither  allowed  preFonce  nor  influence,  the  lay  demerit 
largely  predominated.  In  all  the  suceeding  Conventions 
the  clergy  icere  in  the  majority. 

In  the  First  Convention,  which  settled  the  Prayer- 
Book  of  1785,  three-fifths  of  the  body  were  laymen.  In 
the  Convention  of  1789,  which  decided  to  admit  Bishop 
Seabury,  three-fifths  of  the  number  were  clergymen. 
While  the  power  of  the  laity  was  in  the  ascendent,  the 
Church  was  Protestant  and  Scriptural  in  its  services. 
As  the  Priestly  influence  became  more  general  the 
Communion  became  naturally  more  sacerdotal,  sacra- 
mental and  exclusive. 

The  Church  thus,  in  its  infancy,  was  identical  with 
the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Our  Reformation  is 
simply  a  Restoration;  a  return  to  the  principles  of  the 
patriots  of  the  Revolution. 

In  like  manner  as  the  fathers  of  our  Protestant  Epis- 
copacy in  America,  severed  their  connection  with  the 


I 


NOTKS. 


13 


mother  country,  when  it  departed  from  its  Constitu- 
tional principles  of  Anglo-Saxon  freedom;  on  similar 
grounds  with  equal  right  and  justice.  Bishop  Cum- 
mins and  his  friends  separated  fi'om  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  when  it  went  back  on  its  founders 
and  departed  from  its  original  free,  Biblical.  Constitu- 
tional principles. 

We  have  no  doubt  that  as  light  is  dififused  within  the 
P.  E.  Church,  with  respect  to  its  own  history,  that 
American  laymen  who  partake  of  the  spirit  of  the 
American  Revolution,  will  in  time,  decide  favorably 
as  to  the  claims  of  our  Reformed  Communion  on  theii' 
respect,  nffection  and  support. 

r.isnop  WHITE. 

In  a  brief  notice  of  the  men  who  laid  the  foundations 
of  American  Protestant  Episcopacy,  Bishop  White 
naturally  claims  prominent  attention.  To  the  cause  of 
the  colonists,  Bishop  VVhite's  attachment  was  intelli- 
gent and  uncompromising.  While  his  friend  Rev.  Dr. 
Duche,  returned  to  his  former  allegiance,  Bishop 
White  was  firm  to  the  end.  An  incident  which  oc- 
curred illustrates  the  risk  which  clergymen  who 
became  revolutionists  were  aware  they  incurred. 

While  Bishop  White  w^as  taking  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance after  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  an 
acquaintance  made  a  significant  motion  of  his  hand  at 
his  throat.  Said  the  Bishop  to  him  afterwards:  ''I 
perceive  by  your  gesture,  that  you  thought  I  was  ex- 
posing myself  to  great  danger  by  the  step  I  have  taken. 
But  I  have  not  taken  it  without  full  deliberation.  I 
know  my  danger  and  that  it  is  the  greater  on  account 
of  being  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England.  But 
I  trust  in  Providence.  The  cause  is  a  just  one,  and  I 
trust  will  be  protected." 

When  appointed  chaplain  by  Congress  at  the  period 
of  deepest  gloom  during  the  Revolution,  he  at  once 
proceeded  to  Yorktown  to  discharge  the  duties  of  his 
office.  When  tlie  British  evacuated  Philadelphia  he 
was  the  only  Protestant  Episcopal  clergyman  who 
remained  in  the  State. 

With  regard  to  the  organization  of  the  P.  E.  Church 
he  was  connected  with  every  step  of  the  undertaking. 
lie  presided  in  tlie  Convention  of  1785,  was  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  to  publish  the  Prayer  Book,  was  the 


'•a/ 


14 


NOTES. 


first  to  read  it  in  public  service;  was  conaecrate<i  Bishop 
February  4th,  1787,  and  preached  the  sermon  at  the 
Convention  of  1786. 

BISHOr   WHITE  A  LOW  CHURCIIMAX. 

Though  Bishop  AVhite  assented  in  1789  to  unite  with 
Bishop  Seabury  and  the  New  England  clergy,  his 
ecclesiastical  principles  were  widely  different  from 
theirs.  With  regard  to  Episcopacy,  he  held  the  views 
set  forth  by  the  Refornied  Episcopal  Church.  In  his 
work  entitled:  'The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  ('hurch 
Considered,''  he  WTites :  **The  opinion  that  Episcopacy 
was  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any  idea 
of  Divine  right  in  the  case,  this  the  author  l»elieves  to  be 
the  sentiments  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in 
America,  in  which  resjiect  they  have  in  their  favor, 
unquestionably,  the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  as  he  believes,  the  opinions  of  her  most  distin- 
guished prelates  for  piety,  virtue  and  abilities/' 

His  view  was  also  moderate  with  regard  to  the  Sacra- 
ments. When  Bisiiop  Seabury  pressed  the  Scottish 
Oblation  service  upon  the  Convention  Bishop  White 
most  unwisely  yielded.  In  his  mernoirs,  p.  187,  he 
says :  "That  change  lay  very  near  the  heart  of  Bishop 
Seabury.  For  himself,  without  conceiving  with  some, 
that  the  service  as  it  stood,  was  esseniially  defective, 
he  always  thought  there  was  a  beauty  in  those  ancient 
forms,  and  that  there  was  no  superstition  m  them.  If 
indeed  they  could  have  been  reasonably  thought  to 
imply,  that  a  Christian  minister  is  a  priest,  in  the  sense 
of  an  offerer  of  sacrifice,  and  that  the  table  is  an  al- 
tar, and  the  elements  a  sacrifice,  in  any  other  than 
figurative  senses,  he  would  have  zealously  opposed  the 
admission  of  such  unevangelical  sentiments  as  he  con- 
ceives these  to  be.** 

As  Bishop  Wliite  died  just  as  the  Oxford  Tracts 
were  beginning  their  work  of  un-Protestantizing  the 
Clirirch  I'f  England,  he  did  not  see  the  outcome  of 
allowing  such  language  in  the  Prayer-Book.  This 
ardent  Revolutionary  I'atriot  sympathized  with  the 
view->  of  those  who  framed  the  Book  of  1785,  and 
though  he  allowed  himself  to  be  overcome  and  out- 
witted by  the  High  Churchmen  around  him,  had  he 
lived  to  this  day,  he  would  have  been  an  outspoken 
and   earnest    antagonist  of  those  errors  which  have 


'/ 


I    I] 


NOTES. 


15 


occasioned  the  establishment  of  the  Reformed  Epis- 
copal Church. 

For  what  he  suffered  for  his  Country,  for  what  he 
did  for  Christianity,  let  us  honor  him.  That  he  failed 
to  see  the  consequences  of  his  concessions  to  the  urgent 
and  fiery  spirits  around  him,  was  an  error  of  his  head, 
and  not  the  fault  of  his  loving,  patient,  conciliatory, 
pure  and  honest  heart. 

PROVOST  WILLI A3I  SMITH  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

Dr.  William  Smith,  Provost  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  had  as  prominent  a  part  in  establishing 
the  P.  E.  Church  as  Bishop  White.  As  an  accom- 
plished Theologian  and  a  voluminous  and  eloquent 
wTiter  he  excelled  all  his  associates.  The  Convention 
of  1789,  requested  him  to  publish  his  sermons,  and 
endorsed  his  sentiments.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
Conventions  of  1785,-86,-89.  When  the  service  of  the 
New  Book  was  first  read.  Dr.  Smith  i)reached  the 
sermon.  He  wrote  the  able  preface  to  the  Book.  He 
presided  in  the  House  of  Deputies  from  1789  to  1799. 
He  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  for  revising  the 
Liturgy.  Bishop  White  styles  him  ''the  most  promi- 
nent clergyman  of  his  Church." 

His  sermons  in  behalf  of  Colonial  liberty  were  widely 
distributed  throughout  England.  The  Tory  Governor 
Tryon  called  the  attention  of  the  authorities  to  his  trea- 
sonable utterances.  The  sublimely  eloquent  language 
in  which  he  de])icts  the  coming  grandeur  of  America; 
his  urgent  charge  to  love,  and  union  among  all  denomi- 
nations; his  clear  unfolding  of  the  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty;  give  great  value  and  attractiveness 
to  his  discourses,  which  remain  a  rich  legacy  to  the 
American  iieople. 

In  his  first  Convention  address.  Bishop  Cummins 
quotes  largely  from  the  candid  and  valuable  preface  of 
the  Prayer  Book  of  1785,  composed  by  Dr.  Smith,  and 
also  from  the  sermon  by  Dr.  Smith  on  the  occasion 
when  it  was  first  read  by  Bishop  White. 

There  is  room  but  for  one  extract  from  his  sermons. 
"How  long,  alas!  how  long  shall  the  divided  sentiments 
of  Christians  be  a  reproach  to  their  name?  How^  long 
shall  circumstantials  prevail  over  essentials  ?  embitter- 
ing the  followers  of  the  lowly  Jesus  and  inflaming  their 
breasts  with  a  madness  even  unto  death.    A  sense  of 


16 


NOTE.-.. 


this  made  the  mild  Melancthou,  when  he  came  to  die^ 
thank  God  that  he  was  going  to  be  removed  from  temi)- 
tation  to  sin,  and  the  fierce  rage  of  religious  zealots. 
Surely,  my  brethren,  I  will  repeat  it  again.  There  is 
greater  weight  and  moment  of  Christianity  in  charity, 
than  in  all  the  doubtful  (luestions  about  which  the 
Protestant  Churches  have  been  puzzling  themselves 
and  biting  and  devouring  each  other  since  the  days  of 
the  Reformation.  ^  ••  -■■  It  will  not  be  so  much  a  ques- 
tion at  the  last  day  of  what  Church  we  were,  nor 
whether  we  were  of  Paul  or  Apollos,  but  whether  wo 
were  of  Christ  Jesus  and  had  the  true  mark  of  Chris- 
tianity  in  our  lives."     \^oI.  1 1,  pp.  63,  640, 

1)11.   CHARLES   II.   WHARTON. 

Dr.  Charles  II.  Wharton  was  born  in  Maryland. 
Ordained  a  Roman  Catholic  priest,  God  opened  his  eyes. 
and  he  embraced  the  truths  of  the  Bible.  He  ardentlv 
sympathized  with  the  friends  of  American  liberty.  He 
combined  great  theological  leaniing  and  wide  scholar- 
ship with  a  poetic  genius.  His  tribute  to  Genoa! 
Washington  is  among  the  l^est  poetic  productions  of 
the  Revolution. 

Dr.  Wharton  was  present  and  active  in  the  Conven- 
tions of  17Kj,  and  of  1786.  He  was  on  the  committee  to 
publish  the  Prayer-Book  with  Bishop  White  and  Br. 
Smith.  Bishoi>  White  says  of  him,  ^4n  all  the  impor- 
tant measures  relative  to  the  organization  of  the 
Church  in  this  country,  and  especially  in  the  Revision 
of  the  Liturgy,  his  learning,  wisdom,  and  moderation 
were  most  effective  and  valuable." 

One  sentence  from  his  works  will  reveal  his  liberal, 
loving  spirit.  '^In  this  country,  where  the  Christian  is 
the  only  established  religion,  where  tests  and  subscrip- 
tions are  unknown;  where  refined  speculations  are  not 
likely  to  deform  the  simplicity  or  interrupt  the  harmo- 
ny of  the  Gosi>el,  I  look  forward  with  rapture  to  that 
auspicious  day,  when  Protestants  opening  their  eyes 
upon  their  mutual  agreement  in  all  the  essentials  of 
belief,  will  forget  past  animosities,  and  cease  to  regard 
each  other  as  of  different  Communions.  "Vol.  II,  p.  36K 

BR.   WHARTON'S   VIEWS   OF    APOSTOLIC    SUCCESSION. 

Dr.  AVharton,  like  all  the  English  Refonners,  rejected 
the  doctrine  of  an  exclusive  Episcopal  succession.    We 


NOTES. 


17 


have  had  no  divine  in  our  Church  more  capable  of 
judging  of  this  question.  A  convert  from  Popery,  he 
had  given  the  subject  full  investigation.  The  learned 
Dr.  Thomas  Hartwell  Home  says  of  him:  "I  have  long 
had  his  masterly  treaties  in  controversy  with  Dr.  Car- 
roll, and  value  them  among  my  choicest  books  against 
Popery."  Dr.  Wharton  writes:  ''The  pretence  of  trac- 
ing up  the  Roman  Church  to  the  times  of  the  Apostles, 
is  grounded  on  mere  sophistry.  The  succession  which 
Roman  Catholics  unfairly  ascribe  to  their  Church,  be- 
longs to  every  other,  and  exclusively  to  none.  But  that 
portion  of  the  Christian  Church  is  surely  best  entitled 
to  this  claim,  which  teaches  in  the  greatest  purity,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostles.    .    .    . 

They  have  not  the  inheritance  of  Peter  {stiffs  St.  Am- 
brose.Ub.  l^de pan. )\\ho\m\e not  Peter's  faith."  Works, 
vol.  2,  p.  313. 

A  few  lines  from  the  poem  alluded  to  will  indicate 
the  patriotism  of  this  learned,  liberal-minded  framer  of 
the  Prayer  Book  of  1785,  a  true  Reformed  Episcopalian. 
In  his  introduction  he  says,  "His  sole  view  in  permmg 
this  epistle  was  to  express  in  the  best  manner  he  wai4 
able,  the  warm  feelings  of  a  grateful  individual  toward 
the  best  of  men,  to  whom  he,  and  every  American,  will, 
in  all  likelihood  be  principally  indebted  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  independence  and  commercial  prosperity 
of  his  country." 

"W^hile  many  a  servile  mu?e  her  succor  tends 
To  flatter  tyrant.s,  or  a  tyrant'e  friends, 
While  thousands  slauglitered  at  Ambition's  shrine 
Are  made  a  plea  to  court  the  tuneful  nine; 
W^hile  Whitehead*  lifts  his  hero  to  the  skies, 
Foretells  his  conquests  twice  a  year,  and  lies; 
Damns  half-starAcd  rebels  to  eternal  shame, 
Or  paints  them  treniblinir  at  rfrittJinia's  name; 
Permit  an  humble  bard,  great  Chief,  to  raise 
One  truth-erected  trophy  to  thy  praise. 

Oreat  without  i>omp,  without  ambition  brave, 

Proud  not  to  conquer  fellow-men  but  save; 

Friend  to  the  weak,  to  none  a  foe  but  those 

Who  plan  their  greatness  on  their  brethren's  woes; 

Awed  by  no  titles,  faithless  to  no  trust. 

Free  without  faction,  obstinately  just.  « 

Warned  by  Religion's  pure  and  heavenly  ray, 

That  points  to  future  bliss  the  certain  way,— 

Such  be  my  country!    W^hat  her  sons  should  be, 

O,  may  they  learn,  Great  Washington  from  thee!'' 

*  Poet  I^aureate. 


18 


NOTES. 


THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPACY  OF  THE    REVOLUTION-^ 

ARY  PATRIOTS. 

The  history  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
resembles  in  one  respect,  that  of  its  mother  Church  of 
England.  The  first  six  years  of  the  latter,  were  its 
purest  and  best  years. 

The  days  of  its  glory,  were  those  when  King  Edward 
was  its  earthly  head,  and  when  Cranmer,  Latimer,  Rid- 
ley and  Hooper  where  engaged  in  the  establislmient  of 
the  Church  and  its  formularies. 

The  brightest  period  in  the  history  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Chmch  is  that  of  its  organization  by  White 
and  Provoost,  Smith  and  Wharton,  and  the  framing  by 
these  divines,  of  its  first  and  only  Protestant  Prayer 
Book,  that  of  178-'). 

To  a  Reformed  Episcopalian,  the  study  of  both  these 
periods  is  an  investigation  of  intense  interest.  He  is 
in  full  sympathy  with  these  good  men,  and  their  mea- 
sures.  He  becomes  assured  that  the  Communion  to 
which  he  is  attached,  is  the  legitimate  successor  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  which  they,  with  the  co- 
operation of  other  revolutionaiy  patriots,  so  wisely  es^ 
tablished. 

The  work  of  both  these  periods  of  Ecclesiastical  con- 
struction , was  pen^erted ,  respectively,  by  two  individuals, 
of  temperaments  somewhat  similar.    I  refer  to  Queen 
EUzabeth  and  Bishop  Seabury.    Both  these  characters 
were  equally  tenacious  of  their  respective  prerogatives, 
Royal  and  Episcopal.    Both  were  finn  believers  in  Di- 
vine Right ;  the  first  in  that  of  Kings,  the  other  equally 
in  that  of  Bishops.    Both  by  a  successful  interference 
changed  materially,  and  for  the  woree,  the  character  of 
the  Communions  in  which,  resi^ectively,  they  held  the 
highest  offices.    Both  greatly  retarded  the  reforming 
work  of  their  predecessors,  and  infused  a  Romish  leaven 
into  professedly  Protestant  Institutions,  a  leaven  whicli 
neither  Institution  has  been  since  able  to  expel.    The 
growth  and  influence  for  good  of  both  the  Communions 
referred  to,  has  been  greatly  and  sadly  retarded  by  the 
unhappy  but  successful  interference  of  these  earnest 
and  strong  willed  characters. 

Of  the  men  who  took  part  in  the  organization  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  framed  its  first 
Prayer  Book,  I  have  briefly  de,scril)ed  three  of  the  most 


NOTES. 


19 


prominent.  Bishop  White;  Provost  William  Smith,  of 
Philadelphia ;  Dr.  Charles  H.  Wharton,  of  Delaware; 
large  minded,  and  liberal  Churchmen,  and  earnest, 
loyal  American  Patriots. 

BISHOP  SAMUEL   PROVOOST. 

I  proceed  willi  the  list  of  worthies  whom  the  Re- 
formed Episcopalians  claim  as  their  rightful  ecclesias- 
tical predecessors. 

Samuel  Provoost,  first  bishop  of  New  York,  for  rea- 
sons which  will  appear  as  we  proceed,  has  not  received 
from  his  Church  the  reverential  regard  to  which  his 
memory  is  j  ustly  entitled.  Dr.  Jolm  W.  Francis,  in  his 
**01d  New  York,"  p.  o2,  writes :  ''I  introduce  Bishop 
Provoost  in  this  place,  because  I  think  our  Episcopal 
brethren  have  too  niucii  overlooked  the  man,  his  learn- 
ing, his  liberality  and  his  patriotism." 

Rev.  Dr.  Schroeder,  Minister  of  Trinity  Church,  in 
his  memoir  of  Bishop  Hobart,  p.  liii,  writes :  ^'Dr.  Pro- 
voost was  a  man  of  cultivated  mind  and  manners.  His 
deep  interest,  and  numerous  acts  of  self  denial,  in  pro- 
moting the  good  cause  of  our  civil  liberties,  and  his 
prominent  agency  in  organizing  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  may  well  preserve  his 
name  and  perpetuate  his  memory.  The  motto  of  his 
ancient  family  escutcheon  pro  lihertate,  declared  at 
once  the  sentiments  of  his  Huguenot  forefathers,  and 
the  feelings  which  they  had  transmitted  to  him,  through 
five  generations,  from  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury to  the  year  1742,  when  he  was  born  at  New  York." 

The  Evergreen,  1844,  p.  199,  says :  "-The  character  of 
Bishop  Provoost  is  one  which  the  enlightened  Christian 
will  estimate  at  no  ordinary  standard." 

A  graduate  of  the  first  class  which  passed  through 
King's  (now  Columbia)  College,  he  spent  five  years  in 
study  at  Cambridge,  England,  and  was  ordained  Deacon 
and  Presbyter  in  176G.  Returning  to  New  York,  he 
was  at  once  chosen  assistant  minister  of  Trinity  Church. 
He  served  the  parish  four  years,  when,  on  account  of 
political  troubles,  his  opinions  being  utterly  antagonis- 
tic to  those  of  liis  clerical  associates,  and  the  leading 
members  of  his  parish,  he  resigned  his  position,  and  on 
a  small  farm  in  Duchess  County,  awaited  the  issue  of 
the  coming  conflict. 


'tl 


20 


NOTES. 


NOTES. 


21 


THE  ]^IAGNANIMITY  OF  BISHOP  PROVOOST. 


r  ' 


il! 


Br.  Schroeder  remarks:  ''He  resolutelv  refused  all 
preferment  that  might  l.e  attributed  to  his  sentiments, 
saying:  'as  I  entertained  political  opniions  diametri- 
cally opposite  to  those  of  ni}  brethren,  I  was  apprehen- 
sive that  a  profession  of  these  opinions  might  be  imputed 
,  to  mercenary  views,  and  an  ungenerous  desire  to  rise  on 
their  ruin.'  He  adds.  'To  obviate  any  suspicion  of  this 
kind,  I  formed  a  resolution  never  to  accept  of  anv  i)re- 
ferment  during  the  present  contest.  Although"^  as  a 
private  person,  I  have  t»een  and  shall  be  alwavs  ready 
to  encounter  any  danger  that  may  I^e  involved  in  the 
defense  of  our  invaluable  nghts  and  lil^erties.' '' 

Ilanassed  by  debts,  necesstuily  incurred,  without  "a 
salary  or  income  of  any  kind.'  his  -'estate  at  New- 
York  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy,"  a  '^part  of  his  furni- 
ture sold  to  provide  the  necessaries  of  life,"  and  pre- 
vented by  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  and  the  Canons 
of  the  Church,  from  entering  into  any  secular  employ- 
ment; this  patrioti."  clergyman  spent  iiis  time  in  study, 
in  deeds  of  quiet  usefulness,  and  in  earnest  pravers  for 
the  success  of  Washington  and  his  dcvotcfl  a-iiiy,  and 
for  the  triumph  of  his  country. 

He  declined  invitations  to  the  lea<ling  churches  in 
Boston  and  Charleston,  and  the  chaplaincv  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  of  New  York. 

When  the  cause  of  liberty  had  triumphed,  and  peace 
was  declared,  his  sufferings  were  rewarded.  The  newly 
elected  vestry  of  Trinity  Church  in  whose  hands  the 
Council  of  New  Y'ork  had  placed  the  estate  of  that 
corporation,  under  the  influence  of  John  Jay  and 
James  Duane,  invited  Dr.  Provoost  to  the  rertorate. 

HIS  LEARNING  AND  INFLUENCE. 

No  Episcopal  clergyman  stood  higher  in  influence 
and  position  than  Br.  Provoost.  In  accomplished 
scholarship,  it  may  be  .safely  asserted  that  no  Ameri- 
can Bishop  has  surpassed  him.  and  few  have  equalled 
him.  In  addition  to  his  extensive  Theological  acquire- 
ments,  he  was  an  adept  in  various  departments  of  learn- 
ing. Dr.  Francis  remarks :  "He  l)ecame  skilled  in  the 
Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin.  French,  German  and  Italian 
languages,  and  we  have  been  assured  he  made  an  Eng- 
lish poetical  version  of  Tasso.  He  was  quite  a  pro- 
ficient in  Botanical  knowledge,  and  was  among  the 


earliest  in  England  who  studied  the  Linnean  classifi- 
cation.'* 

Of  his  pulpit  abilities,  we  may  form  an  opinion  from 
a  contemporary  journal,  tlie  J^eiv  York  PackH^  of 
November  2nd,  1780,  describing  his  farewell  sermon  on 
the  eve  of  his  departure  to  lOngland  to  be  consecrated: 
"The  animated  ;nid  pathetic  manner  in  which  IMshop 
Provoost  addressed  his  hearers,  who,  as  well  as  himself, 
appeared  to  be  greatly  affected,  will  be  long  remem- 
bered by  those  present." 

As  regards  the  impression  entertained  of  his  official 
ministrations,  the  New  York  Journal^  November  27th, 
1788,  referring  to  the  approaching  General  Convention, 
says:  "It  must  afford  satisfaction  to  the  friends  of 
Christ  in  general,  and  to  every  Episcopalian  in  particu- 
lar, to  be  informed  that  under  the  superintending  care 
of  Rt.  Kev.  Dr.  Provoost,  Bishop  of  this  State,  true 
religion  is  daily  advanced,  and  more  completely  estab- 
lished in  every  part  of  his  extensive  diocese." 

With  regard  to  his  repute  in  England,  a  periodical  in 
that  country  states:  "Dr.  Provoost  is  the  most  digni- 
fied clergyman,  and  rector  of  the  most  influential  parish 
in  America."  See  Historical  collections,  published  by 
New  Y^'ork  Historical  Society,  1870. 

Elected  bishop  on  the  same  day  with  Bishop  White, 
he  justly  shares  with  that  revered  divine,  the  title  of 
"Father  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church." 

Dr.  Francis  states,  p.  168:  "It  has  been  more  than 
once  afiirmed,  and  the  declaration  is  in  print,  that 
Bishop  Provoost  as  senior  presbyter  and  senior  in  the 
mhiistry,  was  consecrated  first,  and  Bishop  White  next, 
though  in  the  same  day  and  hour,  February  4th,  1787. 
The  son-in-law  of  Provoost,  C.  D.  Colden,  a  man  of 
veracity,  assured  me  such  was  the  case.  If  so,  Pro- 
voost is  to  be  recorded  as  the  Father  of  the  American 
Episcopate.  It  is  painful  to  pluck  a  hair  from  the 
venerable  head  of  the  Apostolic  White,  but  we  are 
dealing  with  histoiy . ' ' 

Although  Bishop  Provoost  was  fairly  entitled  to  the 
precedence  in  the  consecration,  the  preponderance  of  tes- 
timony on  this  point  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  Bishop 
White,  as  Senior  Prelate. 

The  fact  remains,  however,  that  at  the  first  consecra- 
tion of  an  American  Bishop,  Dr.  Claggett,  Bishop  Pro- 
voost presided,  and  thus  beai-s  the  pre-eminence,  in  the 


22 


NOTES. 


NOTES. 


2S 


I! 


'■  I 


matter  of  the  continuance  of  the  Episcopal  succession 
in  this  countrjs  and  thus  also  became  the  father  of 
American  Protestant  Episcopacy. 

It  will  hereafter  be  shown,  that  if  the  counsels  of 
Bishop  Provoost,  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  had 
been  followed,  a  far  more  successful  and  happy  ex-^ 
perience  would  have  attended  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country. 

A  vastly  greater  constituency  of  that  Communion 
would  be  looking  back  with  grateful  memory  to  his 
faithful,  wise  and  patriotic  devotion,  and  his  consistent 
adherence  to  the  best  interests  of  his  Cliurch. 

Bishop  Provoost  became  the  chaplain  to  Congress. 
At  the  Convention  in  178.5,  he  was  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee which  drafted  and  reported  its  "  General  Eccle- 
siastical  Constitution. '^  He  took  a  prominent  part  in 
the  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book  on  the  basis  of  the  re- 
forming  bishops  in  the  reign  of  AYilliam  III,  the  prin- 
ciples of  which  are  so  fully  and  ably  stated  in  the  pre- 
face, by  Provost  Wm.  Smith. 

A  NON-JURING  CHANGE  OF  BASE. 

The  intelligent  and  patriotic  churchmen  of  Xew 
York,  adopted  that  Book  and  its  principles,  and  in  that 
metropolis  it  was  used  until  1789,  when  through  the 
admission  of  the  non-juring  element  into  the  General 
Convention,  and  the  weak  and  sad  concessions  of  its 
members,  the  noble.  Scriptural,  Protestant  work  of  the 
past  years  was  discarded,  the  Scottish  Concordat  was 
allowed  to  triumph,  the  sacramental  and  sacerdotal 
principles  were  restored  in  greater  fullness,  and  a  legacy 
of  error,  diasension  and  comparative  failure  in  growth 
and  influence  was  the  result. 

From  this  Convention  Bishop  Provoost  was  absent 
through  sickness.  [Neither  Jav,  nor  Duane,  nor  Peters 
neither  Page  nor  Pinckney,  the  first  revisers,  were  pres^ 
ent,  to  oppose  the  sacrilegious  re-action.  That  earnest 
opposition  would  have  been  made  by  these  clear-headed 
consistent  reformers,  to  sucli  radical,  per\^erse  changes' 
if  present,  we  must  l)elieve,  and  much  of  the  deteriora- 
tion would  have  been  prevented.  Attention  will  be  here- 
after called  to  the  changes  that  were  effected. 

In  1788,  Bishop  Provoost  consecrated  Trinity  Church 
New  York  City.    On  that  occa^sion,  John  Jay  and  James 
Dunne  were  wardens.    In  addition  to  these  eminent  pa- 


triots,  there  worshiped  in  that  congregation,  a  noble 
band.  Hamilton,  Robert  R.  and  Walter  Livingston^ 
John  Alsop,  Rufus  King,  William  Duer,  John  Ruth- 
ford,  Marinus  Willett  and  Morgan  Lewis,  w^ere  among 
the  stated  attendants  at  that  Reformed  Service,  under 
the  instructions  of  the  patriotic  Bishop. 

A  NOBLE  EXAMPLE  OF  REFORMED  EPISCOPACY. 

Two  years  later,  tliat  same  edifice  presented  a  solemn 
scene  at  the  funeral  of  Theoderick  Bland,  a  member  of 
Congress  and  soldier  of  the  Revolution.  Washington 
and  the  Congress  were  present.  James  Madison  and 
Richard  Henry  Lee  were  among  the  pall  bearers.  Bishop 
Provoost  enters  the  desk  and  reads  the  service,  and 
when  this  is  concluded,  what  venerable  clergyman 
ascends  the  pulpit  to  pronounce  the  funeral  oration?  It 
is  Dr.  William  Linn,  Pastor  of  the  Protestant  Reformed 
Dutch  Church. 

Bishop  Provoost  like  Cranmer  of  old,  and  like  Bishop 
Hall  at  Dort,  with  the  Episcopalians  of  his  day,  cheer- 
fully recognized  the  ministerial  commission  given  by 
the  sister  church  of  that  Denomination,  whose  edifices 
during  the  war,  had  been  converted  by  the  royal  ofii- 
cers  into  prisons,  hospitals  and  riding  schools. 

In  their  principles  and  their  action,  ministers  and 
people  at  that  period  were  Reformed  Episcopalians,  and 
would  have  remained  so  were  it  not  for  the  insidious 
and  deteriorating  influences  of  the  re-actionary  changes- 
in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  The  savor  of  tlie 
Revolution  had  not  yet  been  lost. 

We  have  not  time  to  dwell  on  the  future  history  of 
this  patriotic,  and  truly  Reformed  Episcopalian. 

Saddened  by  the  growing  influence  of  the  exclusive 
and  sacramental  element  in  his  Communion,  "and  by 
many  painful  domestic  and  embarrassing  official  cares," 
infirm  in  health,  afflicted  by  the  loss  of  his  wife,  and  of 
his  favorite  son,  and  by  the  reckless  course  of  another 
son.  Bishop  Provoost  resigned  his  Episcopate  in  1801. 

His  active  career  was  at  a  close.  Ten  years  later,  he 
was  called  from  a  bed  of  sickness,  after  a  paralytic 
stroke,  followed  byjaimdice,  to  assist  at  the  consecra- 
tion of  Bishops  Griswold  and  Hobart.  No  other  bishop 
could  be  obtained  to  complete  the  canonical  number 
required.  The  Church  had  not  prospered  under  the 
Seabury  transformation,  and  it  was  feared  that  recourse 


M 


24 


NOTES. 


must  be  had  to  England  for  a  renewed  supply  of  the 
sacred,  Apostolic,  Episcopal  Depositum.  and  a  fresh 
start,  be  made  by  the  unfortunate  Communion. 

He  died  in  1815.    For  twenty  years  he  had  not  been 
m- sympathy  with  the  prevailing    sentiments  of  his 
Communion,  so  antagonistic  to   the  principles  upon 
which,  by  Jay,  and  Duane,  and  Peters,  and  Griffith 
and  Robert  Smith,  and  other  patriotic  churchmen  it 
had  been  originally  founded.  Near  a  century  afterwards 
It  was  graciously  aUotted  to  Bishop  Cummins  to  revive 
the  noble  and  beautifiU   work,  which   our  patriotic 
fathers  had  so  grandly  inaugurated.    Profiting  by  the 
sad  experience  of  the  past,  may  the  Reformed  Episco- 
iml  Church  carry  on  the  same  work  with  the  divine 
blessing  to  a  glorious  and  permanent  consummation? 
In  describing  the  clergymen  of  the  Revolution  who 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
on  Its  original,  grand,  scriptural,  free,  American  princi- 
ples, we  have  called  attention  to  three  from  the  Northern 
States.    Bishop  White  and   Provost   William  Smith 
of  Pennsylvania;  and  Bishop  Provoost,  of  New  York' 
The  fourth,  Dr.  Charles  II.  Wharton,  at  that  time  was 
a  deputy  from  Delaware.    The  greater  i)art  of  his  min- 
istry,  however,  was  exercised  in  New  Jersey. 

Two  others,  prominent  among  the  Revolutionary- 
clergy  m  this  work,  so  interesting  to  us  Reformed  Epis- 
-copahans  as  fully  sympathizing  in  their  principles  and 
acts,  equally  deserv^e  a  eulogy. 

DR.  DAVID  GRIFFITH,  OF  VIRGINIA. 

Dr.  Griffith  was  born  in  New  York  Citv  in  1742  the 
same  year  and  place  in  which  Bishoj.  Provoost  'was 
bom.  He  was  married  in  New  York  in  1766.  In  the 
City  of  Philadelphia,  at  the  house  of  Bisliop  White  he 
died,  while  attending  the  General  Convention,  August 
3rd,  1789.  After  practicing  medicine  a  few  vears,  he 
went  to  England,  where  lie  was  ordained  bv  the  Bishop 
of  London  in  1770.  In  1771,  he  became'a  pastor  in 
London  County.  Virginia.  In  1779,  he  became  rector 
ot  Christ's  Church,  Alexandria,  and  remained  such  till 
his  deatli.  For  ten  years  General  Washington  was  his 
i^anshioner,  as  well  as  his  intimate  friend 


NOTES. 


COLONIAL  OPPOSITION  TO  mSIIOPS. 


25 


The  State  of  Virginia  strongly  oi)i>osed  the  introduc- 
tion of  bishops  before  the  Revolution.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary here  to  relate  how  offensive  the  idea  of  Episcjopal 
supervision  was  to  tlie  minds  of  the  colonists  generally. 
The  hostility  was  not  confined  to  New  England.  No- 
where was  it  more  determined  than  in  the  colony  of 
South  Carolina. 

John  Adams  states:  "Where  is  the  man  to  be  found 
at  this  day,  when  we  see  Methodistical  Bishops,  Bishops 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  Bishops,  Arclibishops, 
and  Jesuits  oi"  the  Church  of  Rome  with  indifference, 
that  the  apprehension  of  Episcopacy  contributed  fifty 
years  ago  (1815),  as  much  as  any  other  cause,  to  arouse 
the  attention,  not  only  of  the  Virginia  mind,  but  of  the 
common  people,  and  urge  them  to  close  thinking  on  the 
constitutional  authority  of  Parliament  over  the  colo- 
nies? This,  nevei'tlieless,  was  a  fact  as  certain  as  any  in 
the  history  of  North  America."  Dr.  Morse's  Ani.ials 
of  the  Am.  Rev.  pp.  197. 

The  ministers  of  the  synod  of  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia, held  in  concert  with  the  consociated  Churclies 
of  Connecticut,  from  1766  to  1775,  adopted  resolutions 
with  respect  to  this  determined  hostility  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Ehglish  prelacy  on  these  shores.  Among 
the  members  we  have  the  eminent  names  of  John 
Witherspoon,  Drs.  Rodgers  and  Allison,  McWhorter, 
Caldwell,  Tennent,  Mather,  Bellamy  and  Brainerd. 

In  one  of  their  annual  letters  to  their  English  Breth- 
ren, they  remark:  "Tlie  late  attempts  of  the  Episcopal 
clergy  among  us  to  introduce  an  American  Episcopate, 
have  gi\  en  a  general  alarm  to  our  Churches,  who  lied 
from  the  unmerciful  reign  and  persecution  of  diocet^an 
bishops  in  our  mother  country,  to  settle  inanuncniti- 
vated  wilderness;  the  recollection  of  the  cruelties  niul 
hardships  which  our  fathers,  before  this  peaceful  re- 
treat was  opened  for  them,  fillsour  minds  witli  an  utter 
abhorrence  of  every  species  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny  and 
persecution. 

"Besides  all  this,  we  can  assure  you  that  the  Episco- 
pal Provinces  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  do  not  appear 
to  desire  bishops  among  them;  it  is  only  the  request  of 
a  few  discontented  missionaries  in  the  Middle  Colonies; 
the  laity  of  theur  communion  (a  few  high  officers  ex- 


1 


26 


NOTES. 


«epted),  dread  tlie  power  of  a  Bishop's  Court  as  much 
as  any  other  denomination,  and  have  a  liigh  sense  of 
liberty,  civil  and  religious.''  See  minutes  of  Conven- 
tion, republished  1843. 

The  Ilouse  of  Burgesses  in  Virginia,  composed  almost 
fniirely  of  Protestant  Epis^:opalians,  in  1771, by  aunaui- 
irious  vote,  thank  fonr  clergymen  by  name,  "for  the 
wise  and  well-timed  opposition  they  have  made  to  the 
pernicious  projects  of  a  few  mistaken  clergymen  for  in- 
troducing an  American  Bishop,  a  measure  by  which 
much  disturbance,  great  anxiety  and  apprehension, 
would  certainly  take  place  among  His  Majesty's  faith- 
ful American  subjects;  and  that  Mr.  Richard  Henry 
Lee  and  Mr.  Bland  do  acquaint  them  therewith. '^ 

The  writer  here  quoted  remarks:  ''The  circumstances 
which  we  have  just  detailed,  unfortunately  produced  a 
ijoldness  l)etween  the  Episcopalians  of  Virginia  and 
those  of  the  Northern  Provinces."  See  Prot.  Epis. 
Hist.  Col.  1851,  p.  im. 

James  Madison  in  a  letter  1774,  testifies  to  the  same 
predominant  feeling:  ''If  the  Church  of  England  had 
been  the  established  and  general  religion  in  all  the 
Northern  Colonies,  as  it  has  been  among  us  here,  and 
uninterrupted  harmony  had  prevailed  throughout  the 
Continent,  it  is  clear  to  me  that  slavery  and  subjection 
might  and  would  have  been  gradually  insinuated 
among  us."    Rives'  Life  of  Madison,  vol.  1.  p.  43. 

THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  DR.  GRIFFITH. 

Dr.  Griffith  preached  before  the  house  of  Burgesses 
in  stirring  patriotic  strains,  and  entered  the  anny  as 
chaplain,  in  1776.  His  regiment  was  commanded  by 
C^ol.  Hugh  Mercer,  who  fell  mortally  wounded  at 
Princeton. 

Of  Chaplain  Griffith's  army  life  we  have  an  interest- 
ing incident  narrated  :  "The  evening  before  the  battle 
of  Monmouth  found  the  army  encamped  on  Mattapan 
Creek,  near  the  Court  House.  Late  at  night  a  stranger 
suddenly  appeared  before  AVashington^s  quarters.  He 
wore  no  uniform  and  was  instantly  challenged.  He 
replied  that  he  was  Dr.  Griffith,  chaplain  and  surgeon 
in  the  Virginia  line,  on  business  of  great  importance  to 
the  Commander-in-chief.  The  officer  of  the  General 
was  called,  but  refused  admittance.  Washington's 
orders  were  T>eremptor>':  he  wiis  not  to  be  seen  on  any 


NOTES. 


27 


account.  'Go  and  say,'  replied  the  visitor,  'that  Dr. 
Griffith  waits  upon  him  \\'ith  secret  and  important  in- 
telligence, and  craves  an  audience  of  only  five  mm- 
utes.'  The  General  ordered  him  to  be  admitted.  En- 
tering the  Chief's  presence.  Dr.  Griffith  said:  'The 
nature  of  my  intelligence  must  be  my  apology  for  in- 
trusion upon  you  at  this  hour.  I  cannot  di^^ge  the 
names  of  my  authorities,  but  I  can  assure  you  that  they 
are  of  the  very  first  order,  whether  in  point  of  charac- 
ter or  attachment  to  the  cause.  I  warn  your  Excel- 
lency against  the  conduct  of  Major  General  Lee,  in 
to-morrow's  battle.'  So  saying,  he  withdrew  as  sud- 
denly as  he  came." 

Lee's  treacherj^  in  that  battle,  and  Washington's  ter^ 
rific  rebuke  of  him  on  the  field,  which  was  followed  by 
Lee's  withdrawal  from  the  service,  are  well  known. 
Sec  Independent,  Sept.  2, 1880,  article  by  Rev.  Charles 
H.  Woodman.  Lossing's  Hist.  Am.  Rev.,  II,  p.  623, 
states  that  Hamilton  and  others  were  present. 

In  May,  1785,  at  the  First  Convention  in  Richmond, 
"when  thirty-five  clergymen  and  sixty-five  laymen  met 
to  consider  the  question  of  union  as  proposed  to 
tliem,"  Dr.  Griffith  was  appointed  a  delegate  to  the 
General  Convention,  wliicli  met  at  Philadelphia  in  the 
Autumn.  At  that  meeting  he  took  an  active  part  in 
framing  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785. 

At  the  next  Convention  in  Virginia,  he  was  elected 
Bishop. 


THE  LAITY  OF  VIRGINIA. 

Dr.  Griffith  represented  an  illustrious  constituency. 
With  reference  to  the  Virginia  laity.  Rives,  in  his  life 
of  Madison,  Vol.  1,  p.  50,  writes:  "The  vestrymen  of 
that  day,  we  shall  find,  were  the  Washingtons,  the 
Lees,  the  Randolphs,  the  Masons,  the  Blands,  the  Pen- 
dletons,  the  Nelsons,  the  Nicholas',  the  Harrisons,  the 
Pages,  the  Madisons,  and  other  names  far  too  numerous 
to  re-capitulate  in  detail,  which  stand  among  the  first 
on  the  role  of  our  Revolutionary  worthies.  In  these 
men,  and  such  as  these,  were  the  eifective  and  con- 
trolling powers  of  the  Church,  for  the  laity  and  not  the 
clergy  were  the  rulers  here." 

So  impoverished  had  the  Church  become  by  the  War, 
that  the  money  required  for  Dr.  Griffith's  journey  to 
England  was  not  raised  by  the  year  1789,  and  Dr.  G. 


28 


NOTES. 


finally    declined    the    appointment    of    Bishop.      If 
Dr.  Griffith  had  been  consecrated    with  White  and 
Provoost,  and  his  life  had  been  prolonged,  for  he  died 
in  his  forty-ninth  year,  lie  would  have  been  the  first 
bishop,  as  first  elected,  and  been  the  Father  of   the 
American  Church.    He  might  have  been  its  Preserver. 
In  the  sermon  preached  at  his  funeral,  before  the 
General  Convention  by  Provost  Smitli,  he  is  thus  des- 
cribed: "In  the  service  of  his  country,  during  our  late 
contest  for  liberty  and  independence,  he  was  near  and 
dear  to  our  illustrious  Commander-in-chief.    He  was 
also  his  neighbor,  and  honored  and  cherished  by  him 
as  a  pastor  and  friend.    A\'hen  on  the  conclusion  of  the 
War,   he   returned  to  his  pastoral  charge,  and   our 
Church,  in  these  States,  in  the  coui-se  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence,  w*ere  called   to  organize   themselves  as  inde- 
pendent of  all  foreign  authority,  civic  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal, he  was  from  the  beginning  elected  the  chief  cleri- 
cal member  to  represent  the  churches  of  Virginia  in 
our  General  Conventions,  and  highly  estimable  he  was 
among  us.    He  was  a  sound,  noble  divine;  a  true  son, 
and  afterwards  a  father  as  a  bishop-elect  of  our  Church, 
with  his  voice  always,  with  his  pen  occasionally,  sup- 
porting and  maintaining  her  just  rights,  and  yieldhig 
his  constant  and  zealous  aid  in  carrying  on  the  great 
work  for  which  we  are  assembled  at  this  time,  with 
Christian  patience  and  fortitude,  though  at  a  distance 
from  his  family  and  his  nearest  relatives  and  friends,  he 
sustained  his  short  but  severe  illness." 

The  loss  of  such  a  man  in  that  critical  period,  to  his 
diocese  and  to  his  whole  Communion  was  irreparable. 

The  death  of  Dr.  Griffith,  and  the  admission  of  Bishop 
Seabury  and  his  j-arty,  on  conditions  which  radically 
changed  the  principles  of  the  primary  constitution,  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  prayer  book  of  178o,  ai)pears  to  have 
discouraged  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Vir- 
ginia. The  work  of  its  wisest  men  had  been  set  aside. 
It  is  true  a  bishop  was  elected  and  consecrated  in 
1790,  Dr.  James  Madison.  He  attendeil  but  two  Con- 
vention.   His  wise  moderation  was  there  unavailing. 

For  twenty.five  years,  and  for  nine  General  Conven- 
tions, the  Diocese  of  Virginia  was  represented  by  but 
two  clergymen  and  by  one  layman,  who  had  renounced 
the  ministiT.  At  four  General  Conventions  no  Virginia 
bishop,  presbyter  or  layman  was  present. 


NOTES. 


29 


None  of  her  great  laymen  had  a  voice  in  the  action 
which  removed  the  Church  from  the  foundations  upon 
which  Jay,  Duane,  Pinckney,  Peters,  Page,  Ruttledge, 
Griffin  and  bhippen  had  so  grandly  established  it.  It 
was  left  to  weak  and  unwise  hands  to  mar  the  work 
which  had  been  so  nobly  inaugurated. 

BISHOP  MADISON  OF  VIRGINIA. 

Bishop  Madison  of  Virginia  was  briefly  alluded  to  in 
the  last  note.  This  good  and  learned  man  deserves  a 
full  consideration  in  this  connection,  as  he  was  in  fuU 
sympathy  with  the  liberal  American  principles  which 
characterize  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  as  dis 
tmgmshed  from  the  religious  Body,  which  its  founders 
were  compelled  to  abandon. 

THE  LOYALIST  CLERGY. 

To  the  anti-revolutionary  principles,  which  were  held 
by  the  loyalist  clergy,  through  whose  influence  the  con 
stitution  and  Prayer  Book  of  the  original  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  were  radically  changed,  we  have  the 
testimony  of  one  of  the  most  noted  of  that  company  R^v 
Dr.  Thomas  B.  Chandler,  rector  of  St.  John's  Church* 
Ehzabeth,  who  retired  to  England  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Revolution.  In  his  "Appeal  on  behalf  of  the  Chiich 
of  England  in  America,"  Dr.  C.  writes:  "Episcopacy 
can  never  thrive  in  a  republican  government;  norV^ 
publican  principles  in  an  Episcopal  Church.    For  the 
same  reasons,  in  a  mixed  monarchy,  no  form  of  eccle 
siastical  government  can  so  exactly  harmonize  with  the 
.^tate,  as  that  of  a  qualified  Episcopacy.    And  as  thev 
are  mutually  adapted  to  each  other,  so  they  are  mutually 
mtroductive  of  each  other." 

THE  WISDOM  OF  THE  REVOLUTIONARY  FATHERS. 

It  was  the  avowal  of  such  sentiments,  and  the  obloquy 
occasioned  by  them,  that  led  men  like  Jay  and  B^J 
and  Shippen  and  Page,  and  Pinckney,  to  cast  aside  the 
teudal  principles  of  the  mother  Church,  and  to  frame  a 
constitution  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, and  therefore  acceptable  to  a  free  people. 

THE  HOSTILITY  TO  EPISCOPACY. 

Bishop  White  states  in  his  Memoir  of  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  page  48,  that  the  opinion  was  gener- 


80 


NOTES. 


ally  entertained,  "that  Episcopacy  itself  was  unfriendly 
to  the  political  principles  of  our  Republican  Govem- 
iiient." 

Dr.  Hawks  in  his  work  on  the  Constitution  and 
Canons  of  the  P.  E.  Church,  remarks:  ''The  effect  of 
the  American  Revolution  upon  the  Church,  had  been 
to  attach  to  it  no  small  share  of  odium,  and  few  cared 
to  enroll  themselves  among  the  clergy  of  a  Communion, 
small  in  numbers,  and  the  object  also  of  popular  dis- 
like." The  reasons  for  this  we  have  before  presented^ 
and  Mr.  William  B.  Reed,  an  Episcopalian,  in  an  ad- 
dress before  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  con- 
firms the  statement.  He  says:  ''Patriotic  clergymen  of 
the  Established  Church  were  exceptions  to  general 
conduct.  ...  It  is  a  sober  judgment  which  cannot  be 
questioned,  that  had  independence  and  its  maintenance 
depended  on  the  approval  clearly  sanctioned  of  the  Colo- 
nial Episcopal  Clergy,  misrule  and  oppression  must 
have  become  far  more  intense  before  they  would  have 
seen  a  case  of  justifiable  revolution." 

Had  the  P.  E.  Bishops  and  clergy  generally  been 
men  of  the  moderation  and  wisdom  of  Provoost, 
Griffith  and  Madison,  these  prejudices  would  gradually 
have  been  removed,  and  the  names  of  the  patriotic 
heroes  who  had  reformed  the  Church,  and  revised  the 
Prayer  Book  for  a  free  country,  would  have  established 
general  confidence,  and  the  result  would  have  been  a 
powerful,  numerous  and  widely  influential  commimion. . 

THE  MODERATION  OF  BISHOP  MADISON. 

Bishop  Madison  who  had  been  elected  President  of 
William  and  Mary  College  at  the  age  of  28,  presided  at 
the  first  Convention  in  Virginia,  consisting  of  thirty- 
live  clergymen  and  sixty-five  laymen.  Consecrated  in 
1790— in  the  House  of  Bishops,  he  introduced  a  re- 
markable resolution  which  passed  that  Body.  Bishops 
Provoost  and  White,  probably  voting  for  it.  It  ex- 
hibits the  Catholic  nature  of  the  man,  and  was  undoubt- 
edly an  index  to  the  principles  of  his  Diocese,  which 
has  remained  so  generally  faithful  to  the  charitable 
and  moderate  views  of  its  noble  founders. 

HIS  EFFORT  TO  PR03I0TE  CHRISTIAN  UNION. 

"The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  ever  bearing  in  mind  the  sacred 


NOTES. 


31 


t)bligations  which  attends  all  the  followers  of  Christ,  to 
-avoid  divisions  among  themselves;  and  anxious  to  pro- 
mote that  union  for  which  our  Lord  and  Saviour  so  earn- 
estly prayed,  do  hereby  declare  to  the  Christian  world, 
that  uninfluenced  by  any  other  considerations  than  those 
of  duty  as  Christians,  and  an  earnest  desire  for  the  pros- 
perity of  pure  Christianity,  and  the  furtherance  of  our 
holy  religion,  they  are  ready  and  willing  to  unite  and 
form  one  body  with  any  religious  society,  which  shall 
be  influenced  by  the  same  Catholic  spirit. 

"And  in  order  that  this  Christian  end  may  be  the 
more  easily  effected,  they  further  declare  that  aU  things 
in  which  the  great  essentials  of  Christianity  and  the 
characteristic  principles  of  their  Church  are  not  con- 
cerned, they  are  willing  to  leave  to  future  discussion; 
being  ready  to  alter  or  modify  those  points,  which  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  are 
subject  to  human  alterations.  And  it  is  hereby  recom- 
mended to  the  State  Conventions  to  adopt  such  meas- 
ures or  propose  such  Conferences  with  Christians  of 
other  denominations,  as  to  themselves  may  be  thought 
most  prudent;  and  report  accordmgly  to  the  ensuing 
General  Convention."  Bh.  White's  Mem.  Prot.  Epis. 
Ch.,  p.,  168.    Perry's  Hist.  Gen.  Con.,  p.  80. 

Dr.  Sprague  in  his  Annals  of  Epis.  Pulpit,  p.  320, 
writes  of  Bishop  Madison:  "At  this  period  his  heart 
seems  to  have  been  intensely  fixed  on  uniting  as  far  as 
possible,  all  sincere  Christians.  'There  is  no  one,' he 
says,  'but  must  cordially  wish  for  such  a  union,  pro- 
vided it  did  not  require  a  sacrifice  of  those  points  which 
are  deemed  essentials  by  our  Church;  from  them  we 
have  not  power  to  retreat.'  He  introduced  a  proposi- 
tion to  this  effect  in  the  General  Convention  held  in 
New  York  in  1792;  but  it  met  with  no  favor,  and  was 
silently  withdrawn. ' ' 

IIIS  CHARITABLE  EFFORTS  DEFEATED. 

The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  which  con- 
tained few  of  its  original  founders  among  the  laity, 
and  none  of  like  eminence,  appears  to  have  felt  the  reac- 
tionary influence  of  the  new  regime.  They  rejected  the 
proposition  as  "preposterous,"  and  it  was  not  permit- 
ted to  be  recorded  in  the  journal. 

The  same  treatment  has  at  times  since  been  extended 
to  the  various  petitions  for  relief,  from  burdens  on  the 


32 


NOTES. 


conscience,  presented  by  numerous  venerable  and  de- 
voted clergymen  and  laymen. 

Bishop  ]Madison  in  the  remaining  twenty-three  years^ 
of  his  life,  attended  but  one  more  General  Convention. 
He  found  the  important  educational  field  to  which  he 
had  early  devoted  his  deep  and  varied  learning,  more 
congenial.  He  was  the  regularly  officiating  minister  of 
the  ancient  church  at  Jamestown,  five  miles  from  his 
College,  and  on  a  salary  of  only  one  hundred  pounds  a 
year. 

BISHOP  MADISON  AS  A  PREACHER. 

With  respect  to  his  pulpit  talent,  President  John 
Tyler,  who  had  been  his  pupil,  remarks:  ''Bishop 
Madison  in  the  pulpit,  was  regarded  in  his  day  as 
strikingly  eloquent;  his  style  w^as  copious  and  Cicero- 
nian, and  his  manner  strikingly  impressive.  Tlie  deep 
tones  of  his  voice  and  its  silvery  cadence  were  incom- 
parably fine.  It  has  been  my  fortune  to  hear  our  first 
and  most  distinguished  orators,  as  well  in  our  public 
assemblies,  as  in  the  pulpit;  but  I  recollect  nothing  to 
equal  the  voice  of  Bishop  Madison."  President  Tyler 
continues  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Sprague:  ''It  was  as 
President  of  William  and  Mar>',  that  the  chiefest  value 
of  his  life  was  exhibited.  The  hundreds  who  went  ou 
into  the  world,  the  light  of  his  teaching,  the  greut  and 
exalted  names  which  were  given  to  fame  by  several  of 
those,  who  under  hiin  became  the  disciples  of  Locke 
and  Sidney,  speak  more  loudly  in  his  praise  than  any 
words  I  can  utter  and  write.  Well  may  his  relative 
and  namesake,  James  Madison,  have  said  of  him  in  the 
language  quoted  by  you  in  your  letter  that,  'he  was  one 
of  the  most  deserving  men  that  ever  lived.'  I  could 
have  said  no  less  of  one,  the  memory  of  whose  virtues 
is  indelibly  impressed  upon  my  heart  and  mind— Exem- 
plar vitae  inm-umque.  As  such  I  regarded  him  when 
living,  and  as  such  I  cherish  his  memory,  now  that  he 
is  dead."    Sprague 's  Annals,  p.  323. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  earnestness  which  characterized 
Bishop  Madison's  addresses  to  the  clergy,  Dr.  Sprague 
gives  the  following  extnicts:  "I  do  not  think  that  I 
should  discharge  my  duty  in  the  manner  which  my 
conscience  and  my  inclination  dictate,  were  I  not  to 
speak  upon  this  occasion  with  all  that  plainness  and 
freedom  which  the  importance  of  the  subject  demands. 


NOTES. 


33 


I  know  that  our  Church  is  blessed  with  many  truly 
pious  and  zealous  pastors,— pastors  from  whose  exam- 
ple the  greatest  advantage  might  be  derived  by  all  of 
us;  but  at  the  same  time  I  fear  that  there  is  too  much 
reason  to  apprehend  that  the  great  dereliction  sustained 
by  our  Church  has  arisen,  in  no  small  degree,  from  the 
want  of  ihiii  fervent  Christian  zeal  which  such  exam- 
ples ought  more  generally  to  have  inspired.    Had  the 
sacred  fire  committed  to  our  trust  been  everywhere  at 
xill  times    cherished  by   us  with  that  watchful  and 
jealous  attention  which  so  holy  a  deposit  required;— 
had  it  been  tlius  cherished,  might  not  the  ancient  flame 
which  once  animated  and  enlightened  the  members  of 
our  Church,  still  have  diffused  its  warmth?  *  *  *  ♦ 
What  minister,  what  priest,  what  bishop  is  there,  who 
will  not.  with  pious  awe,  reflect  most  seriously  upon 
the  momeiitous  charge  committed  unto  him;  and  while 
he  profoundly  meditates  upon  the  extent  of  his  duties, 
ardently  supplicate  at  the  throne  of  grace  the  renewal 
of  that  fervent  zeal  without  which  the  great  ends  of 
His  mhiistry  can  never  be  accomplished." 

It  is  due  to  us  Beformed  Episcopalians,  to  give  right- 
ful honor  to  this  first  bishop  of  Virginia,  who  like 
Provoost,  was  more  eminent  for  learning  and  charity, 
than  for  ecclesiastical  partizanship,  and  arrogant, 
sectarian  exclusiveness.  His  fame,  as  his  history  is 
more  fully  known,  as  an  eminent  Christian  scholar  and 
educator,  Avill  shine  like  that  of  Arnold  and  Wa viand, 
and  Muhlenberg,  with  ever  increasing  lustre. 

THE  ACTION  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

We  enter  upon  an  intensely  interesting  theme  when 
we  refer  to  South  Carolina  and  her  relation  to  the 
American  Kevolution.  The  names  of  her  magnificent 
heroes  Marion,  Sumpter,  Pickens,  Moultrie,  Laurens; 
of  him  who  lead  them  on  to  final  victory,  Greene,  the 
beloved  and  trusted  of  Washington;  together  with  the 
Pickneys  and  the  Rutledges,  rise  up  before  us  to  arouse 
our  highest  admiration  for  patriotism,  valor,  and  virtue 
exhibited  in  their  highest  possible  perfection. 

And  when  we  state  that  Robert  Smith,  first  bishop  of 
South  Carolina,  served  under  these  leaders  as  a  private 
soldier,  in  the  Siege  of  Charieston,  and  that  the  honored 
names  of  Pinckney  and  of  Rutledge  are  associated  mth 
his  in  the  formation  of  the  first  Prayer  Book  and  the 


34 


NOTES. 


NOTES. 


35 


first  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churchy 
so  radically,  so  unwisely,  and  so  needlessly  changed  in 
aft^r  times,  we  claim  as  Reformed  Episcopalians,  an 
especial  interest  in  the  lives  of  Carolina's  noble  Chris- 
tian Patriots. 

No  State,  except  Virginia,  w^as  so  hostile  to  the  in- 
troduction of  the  Hierarchy  from  England  as  South 
Carolina. 

The  South  Carolina  Episcopalians  w^re  largely 
descendants  of  the  Huguenots.  Their  ancestors  had 
been  driven  from  their  native  country,  after  the  mas- 
sacre of  St.  Bartholomew,  by  the  influence  of  merciless 
bishops.  The  Protestantism  of  the  descendants  of  these 
martyrs  and  confessors  was  not  of  the  later  German- 
silver  variety  but  had  the  ring  of  the  true  metal. 

The  brave  officers  w^ho  won  the  battles  in  the  Car- 
olinas  were  largely  Christian  men— Generals  Morgan 
and  Sumpter  who  commanded  at  the  Cowpens;  Colonels 
Campell,  Williams,  Cleveland,  Shelby,  and  Sevier,  with 
Major  Morrow  at  King's  :Mountain;  as  well  as  Colonel 
Bratton  and  Major  Dickson,  at  Huck's  Defeat,  were  all 
Presbyterian  elders.  Marion  too  was  a  Christian  man. 
It  required  such  men  to  face  and  repair  the  repeated 
disasters  of  those  memorable  campaigns. 

Ramsey,  Hist.  S.  Carolina,  ii,  p.  38,  says;  "Great 
numbers  of  French  Protestants  sought  an  asylum  in 
South  Carolina,  at  different  periods,  who  were  Presby- 
terians." The  number  of  Episcopalians  was  compam- 
tively  small.  Dr.  Smyth  in  article.  Southern  Review  on 
"The  Revolution," p.  43,  states;  "In  South  Carolina,  the 
great  body  of  the  people  were  non-Episcopalians.  Epis- 
copalianism  was  indeed  the  established  religion,  but 
not,  as  has  been  recently  affirmed,  'the  predominant 
religion.'  *  *  *  The  establishment  of  the  Episcopalian 
religion  in  South  Carolina  was  the  act  of  a  small  minor- 
ity—obtained surreptitiously,— by  sui-prise,- and  by  a 
majority,  even  then  of  only  one  vote.  It  never  ex- 
pressed the  views  of  the  Colonists,  and  was  never 
regarded  othenvise  than  as  unjust,  tyrannical,  and 
unchristian." 

When,  therefore,  the  invitation  was  extended  to  the 
Episcopalians  of  South  Carolina  to  unite  in  the  forma- 
tion of  an  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  the 
chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  project,  was  the  matter 
of  Bishops,  as  in  Yirgijiia.    The  history  of  the  order 


had  not  commended  the  institution  to  mankind;  its 
human  origin  being  apparent  from  its  general  results. 
The  office  can  only  be  safely  allowed  when  curbed  and 
reduced  as  in  the  Primitive  Church,  when  the  Bishop 
was  simply  a  presiding  Presbyter  and  belonging  to 
that  order.  Such  was  his  position  immediately  after 
the  Revolution,  the  same  as  now  allowed  m  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church,  whose  Constitution  and 
Prayer  Book  have  been  modelled  closely  after  the  wise 
arrangements  of  the  great  men  of  that  period,  and  are 
consequently  truly  American,  free  and  safe. 

South  Carolina  and  Virginia  were  extremely  cautious 
in  entering  upon  the  work  of  Ecclesiastical  organization. 
South  Carolina  came  into  the  Union  of  the  Churches  in 
the  Middle,  and  Southern  States  on  the  condition  that 
no  Bishop  should  be  appointed  over  her.  The  Laity 
were  to  have  a  share  in  the  Councils  of  the  Church,  their 
negative  was  to  give  them  co-ordinate  privileges  in 
matters  of  ecclesiastical  legislation  with  tlie  clergy.  So 
Democratic  were  these  early  assemblies,  that  in  Virginia 
and  South  Carolina  at  the  meetings  for  reorganizing 
the  Church,  laymen  were  appointed  chairmen.  See 
Church  Monthly^  October  1865,  White's  Memoirs,  p. 
95. 

In  the  Convention  of  1785  South  Carolina  appointed 
a  distinguished  delegation  consisting  of  Hon.  Charles 
Pinckney,  Hon.  Jacob  Read,  Hon.  John  Bull  and  Hon. 
John  Kean.  Messrs.  Pinckney  and  Read  were  enabled 
to  attend.  The  General  Convention  of  1786  had  as 
delegates,  Hon.  John  Parker  and  Edward  Mitchel,  At 
its  adjourned  meeting  in  October  of  the  same  year,  John 
Rutledge,  son  of  the  eminent  War  Governor  and  states- 
men of  the  same  name,  and  nephew  of  the  celebrated 
Edward  Rutledge,  represented  the  State.  Rev.  Robert 
Smith  appointed  delegate  in  1785,  was  unable  to  attend 
on  account  of  the  condition  of  his  family.  Rev.  Henry 
Purcell,  D.  D.,  was  representative  that  year.  In  the 
two  Conventions  of  1786  Dr.  Robert  Smith  was  present, 
to  confirm  the  wise  action  of  the  previous  year. 

ROBERT  SMITH  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Of  the  distinguished  men  who  thus  laid  the  fair 
foundations  of  that  Church,  we  can  speak  but  brietiy  of 
the  two  most  eminent,  Dr.  Smith  and  Colonel  Pinckney, 
both  truly  Reformed  EpiscopaliaiLS. 


/ 


NOTES. 

Robert  Smith  was  educated  in  England,  at  Cambridge 
University.  He  was  born  the  same  year  with  Wash- 
ington, 1732.  He  became  assistant  minister  of  St. 
Philip's  Church,  Charleston,  in  1757.  He  was  buried  in 
the  cemetery  of  that  Church  m  1801.  "  Mr.  Smith,  as 
his  predecessors  had  done,  took  a  deep  interest  in  the 
negro  school  establislied  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
Parts,  and  he  made  it  a  part  of  his  duty  to  visit  the 
school  and  ascertain  the  proficiency  of  the  children  twice 
a  week."    Oiu:  Reformed  Episcopal  Bishop  wlio  has 

imbibed  theecclesiasticalprinciplesof  this  Revolutionary 
Father,  as  his  legitimate  successor,  has  taken  up  his 
Gospel  work  in  this  department,  as  in  his  other  Episco- 
pal labors. 

"  At  the  seige  of  Charleston  by  tlie  British  troops 
under  Sir  Henr>'  Clinton,  ]\Ir.  Smith  preached  as  he  felt 
the  crisis  to  require,  and  encouraged  liis  people  by  his 
own  example  in  the  defense  of  their  liberties  and  homes, 
by  going  himself  into  the  lines  armed  as  a  common 
soldier."    Dalcho's  Ch.  Hist.,  S.  Carolina,  p.  216. 

We  are  not  surprised  to  read  that :  "  Upon  the  fall 
of  Charleston  he  was  marked  by  the  enemy  for  persecu- 
^  tion ;  for  falling  ill  shortly  after  its  surrender,  and  even 
when  his  recovery  was  doubtful  he  was  placed  under 
double  sentinels.  Banished  m  1780  to  Philadelphia, 
he  returned  in  1783  and  labored  till  his  death,  largely  in 
education,  having  established  the  Academy  which 
afterward  became  Charleston  College."  See  Sprague's 
Annals,  p.  172. 

But  troubles  came  upon  the  Church  in  the  South,  as 
in  the  North,  by  the  admission  to  predominating 
power  and  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury  and  his  part^% 
who  were  imbued  with  the  feudal  principles  to  which 
our  Revolutionary  fathers  were  so  uncompromisingly 
and  so  rightfully  hostile.  Dalcho  writes,  p.  218.  "The 
Church  would  not  so  easily  (if  they  would  for  many 
years)  have  joined  the  General  Association  of  the  P.  E. 
Church  in  the  United  States,  had  not  Dr.  Smith  been 
at  this  period  their   principal  counsellor  and  guide." 

The  Constitution  of  the  Churcli  as  originally  care- 
fully framed  by  such  first  class  minds,  as  Judges  Jay, 
Duane,  Shippen,  and  Peters;  Governors  Pinckney  and 
Page;  Griffin,  President  of  Congress,  and  Senator 
Rutherford;    in    conjunction   with    Bishop  Provoost, 


NOTES. 


37 


< 


Griffith,  the  Smiths,  Wharton,  Bishop  White  and  other 
noble  Christian  legislators,  was  destined  to  be  radically 
changed  and  the  grand  w^ork  to  be  marred  and  defaced, 
in  order  to  gratify  a  band  of  men  who  had  no  sympathy 
with  the  principles  of  the  American  Revolution,  but 
had  earnestly  sought  to  keep  the  colonists  in  subjection 
to  an  imperious  and  tyrannical  King  and  Parliament. 
We  do  not  believe  that  since  Apostolic  times,  any 
Christian  Church,  in  its  organization  has  ever  been 
blessed  with  a  more  distinguished  and  competent  band 
of  laborers,  than  those  who  constructed  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal Constitution,  whose  overthrow  it  is  our  painful 
task  to  describe  in  detail. 

It  was  a  cardinal  principle  with  Bishop  Seabury  that 
laymen  had  no  right  to  legislate  in  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  RADICALLY  CHANGED. 

The  Constitution  as  primarily  framed  read:  "In 
every  State  where  there  shall  be  a  Bishop  duly  consecra- 
ted and  settled,  and  who  shall  have  acceded  to  the  articles 
of  this  general  Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  he  shall  be 
considered  as  a  member  of  the  Convention  ex  officio.'''' 
At  the  next  Convention  to  please  Bishop  White,  uix)n 
his  motion,  there  was  added  to  this  section,  these 
w^ords:  "and  a  Bishop  shall  always  preside  in  the 
General  Convention,  if  any  of  the  Episcopal  order  be 
present." 

At  the  primary  Convention  of  1789,  with  the  design 
of  conciliating  Bishop  Seabury,  the  Constitution  was 
changed:  "The  Bishops  of  this  Church  when  there 
shall  be  three  or  more,  shall,  whenever  General  Conven- 
tions are  held,  form  a  House  of  Revision,  and  when 
any  proposed  act  shall  have  passed  in  the  General  Conven- 
tion, the  same  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  House  of 
Revision  for  their  concurrence.  And  if  the  same  shall 
be  sent  back  to  the  Convention,  with  the  negative  or 
non-concurrence  of  the  House  of  Revision,  it  shall  be 
again  considered  in  the  General  Convention,  and  if  the 
Convention  shall  adhere  to  the  same  act,  by  a  majority 
of  three-fifths  of  their  body,  it  shall  become  a  law^  to  all 
intents  and  puiposes,  notwithstanding  the  non-concur- 
rence of  the  House  of  Revision." 

This  radical  departure  from  the  primary  Constitu- 
tion, in  thus  erecting  a  separate  deliberative  body,  sim- 
ilar to  the  House  of  Lords,  a  second  order  of  clergy 


/ 


/ 


'/ 


88 


NOTES. 


elected  for  life,  was  not  a  sufficient  concession  to  Bishops 
Seabury  and  the  Eastern  clergy,  and  therefore  an  ad- 
journed Convention  was  held  the  same  year,  at  which 
still  further  arid  more  radical  concessions  were  made^ 
whose  disastrous  results  in  South  Carolina,  V^ginia, 
and  other  portions  of  the  Church,  we  shall  proceed  to 
relate. 

THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  PRIMARY  P.  E.  CONSTITUTION. 

"It  is  well  knowTi  that  our  Church  was  formed  after 
the  Revolution,  with  an  eye  to  what  was  then  believed 
to  be  the  truth  and  simplicity  of  the  Gospel;  and  tliere 
appears  to  be  some  reason  to  re^et  that  the  motives 
which  then  governed  have  since  been  less  operative." 

Such  was  the  wise,  but  mild  rebuke  administered  by 
John  Jay,  near  three-quarters  of  a  century  ago,  in  a 
letter  to  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  when  refusal 
was  made  by  him  to  tlie  use  of  the  Institution  Office  in 
the  parisli  at  Bedford,  New  York.  See  Life  of  Jay, 
Vol.  1,  p.  442. 

"This  document"  writes  his  biographer,  "evinces  the 
same  inflexible  opposition  to  assumed  authority  in  the 
Church,  which  he  had  so  illustriously  displayed  to  usur- 
pations in  the  State."  It  is  indeed  a  memorable  docu- . 
ment  to  which  we  shall  refer  again  in  the  course  of  our 
investigation  into  the  work  of  the  Revolutionary 
Fathers,  in  constructing  the  primary  Constitution,  and 
the  original  Prayer  Book  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church. 

As  John  Jay  was  the  most  illustrious  architect  of 
that  Constitution,  and  fully  endorsed  the  Prayer  Book 
of  1785,  it  is  interesting  to  read  his  statement  of  the 
sound  principles  upon  which  that  grand  work  was 
based;  principles  whic^j  have  governed  Reformed  Epis- 
copalians, who  are  now  engaged  in  restoring  the  same 
Christian  work,  so  nobly  inaugurated  a  century  ago. 

OPPOSITION  TO  THE  EPISCOPATE. 

The  hostility  to  "the  assumed  authority  and  the  usur- 
pations" which  had  been  characteristic  of  the  Episco- 
pal order,  which  prevaded  South  Carolina,  was  equally 
shared  by  Jay  and  Duane,  and  others  at  the  North. 

It  was  to  protect  the  Church  from  the  encroachment 
of  that  Order,  that  the  First  Constitution  was  so  care- 
fully framed,  and  if  there  had  been  wisdom  and  states- 


NOTES. 


)». 


inanship  in  those  who  assumed  to  guide  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  adequate  to  the  undertaking  in  thfr 
years  succeeding;  that  Church  might  have  kept  pace  ia 
its  growth  with  the  nation,  whose  foundations  had  been 
laid  by  the  same  hands. 

There  was  good  reason  for  the  anxiety  felt  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Episcopal  domination,  by  the  Episcopalians  of 
Virginia  and  South  Carolina,  and  by  their  patriotic- 
brethren  in  New  York. 

REASONS  FOR  ANXIETY. 

It  was  well  known  that  a  clergyman  of  extreme  High' 
Church,  sacerdotal  and  exclusive  views  had  been  re-^ 
quested  by  half  a  score  of  clergymen  in  Connecticut^ 
to  cross  the  ocean  for  consecration,  and  that  such  con- 
secration had  been  conferred  by  the  successors  of  bishops 
who  had  been  In  open  hostility  to  the  authorities  of  their 
nation,  and  had  sympathized  with  and  prayed  for  the^ 
restoration  of  the  Popish  heir  of  James  II.  Their  very 
existence  as  a  sect  was  based  on  their  opposition  to- 
William  III.,  whom  the  people  of  England,  when 
wearied  with  the  tyranny  and  usurpations  of  their 
Roman  Catholic  Monarch,  had  placed  on  the  throne. 

And  it  was  because  the  King  and  Parliament  of 
Great  Britain  had  violated  the  principles  of  constitu- 
tional  liberty,  re-established  in  the  time  of  William  III.,, 
that  the  colonists  in  America  had  revolted,  and  had 
been  forced  to  establish  themselves  as  a  free  and  inde- 
I)endent  nation. 

And  now  the  clergyman,  the  ablest  of  the  company ^ 
who  in  America,  had  labored  to  frustrate  the  plans,  and 
to  prevent  the  success  of  the  Revolutionary  patriots^ 
had  returned  to  his  country  as  a  ruler  in  the  Church,  to 
shape  and  fashion  the  infant  Communion  according  to 
a  "concordat"  arranged  by  those  who  had  conferred  on. 
him  Episcopal  power. 

When  we  consider  this  marked  fact  in  connection 
with  the  deep-seated  general  hostility  to  Episcopal  rule 
in  the  colonies,  we  are  not  surprised  at  the  action  taken 
by  the  Protestant  Episcopalians  of  South  Carolina  in 
refusing  to  accept  a  bishop  for  their  Church. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  ADAMS. 

John  Adams  wrote  to  Mr.  Niles,  February  13th,, 
1818:    "This   controversy  spread   an  universal  alarm. 


A 


/, 


40 


NOTES. 


\ 


against  the  authority  of  Parliament.  It  excited  a  gen- 
eral and  just  apprehension,  that  bishops  and  dioceses, 
and  churches  and  priests,  and  titlies,  were  to  be  im- 
posed on  us  by  Parliament.  It  was  known  that  neither 
King,  nor  ministry,  nor  archbishops,  could  appoint 
bishops  in  America,  without  an  act  of  Parliament;  and 
if  Parliament  could  tax  us,  they  could  establish  the 
Church  of  England  with  all  its  creeds,  articles,  tests, 
ceremonies  and  tithes,  and  prohibit  all  other  churches, 
as  conventicles  and  schism  shops." 

It  was  the  consciousness  of  the  general  feeling  which 
had  prevailed  with  respect  to  Episcopacy,  which  led 
Provoost,  Jay  and  Duane,  and  other  patriots  to  frame 
their  wise,  safe  and  acceptable  Constitution. 

Before  proceeding  further  with  the  narrative  of  the 
complete  abandonment  of  the  principles  of  this  original 
Constitution,  it  is  proper  to  call  attention  to  another 
patriotic  bishop  of  the  South,  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrew. 

REV.  CHARLES  PETT.IGREW\ 

In  the  Appendix  to  the  Life  of  Judge  James  Iredell, 
Vol.  II.  p.  591,  we  have  the  "Biographical  notice  of  the 
Et.  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrew;  First  Bishop  of  the  Diocese 
of  North  Carolina."    He  is  thus  styled,  inasmuchas  he 
was  elected  to  that  office,  and  was  faithful  in  the  over- 
sight of  the  Church  in  the  State.    And  inasmuch  as 
an  honest  and  fair  election  constitutes  a  presbyter  a 
bishop;  Consecration   being    simply   an    orderly    and 
seemly  ceremony,  such  as  the  Coronation  of  a  King,  not 
conveying  iK)wer,  already  possessed,  but  affirming  it; 
and  moreover  as  Mr.  Pettigrew  was  received  as  a  bishop 
of  the  churches  of  all  denominations,  he  could  justlv 
claim  the  official  title  which  he  so  universally  received. 
^  He  appears  indeed  to  have  been  more  fully  a  true 
Swiptural  Overseer,  than  any  of  his  contemporaries.  We 
read  that— '^During  all  this  period  he  seems  to  have 
been  not  so  much  at  the  head  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
as  of  religion  in  general,  for  there  are  various  letters  to 
him  from  Edward  Dromgoole,  and  other  Methodists, 
who  either  resided  in  or  traveled  through  that  region, 
and  also  from  Lutherans,  &c.,  giving  him  an  account 
of  their  movements,  and  requesting  an  attendance  at 
their  meetings.     Indeed  the   Clunvh    Establishment 
having  been  dissolved,  and  all  religious  organizations 
broken   down,  the  enemies  of   the   evil   one   fought 


NOTES. 


41 


together,  with  no  other  bond  of  union  than  a  common 
foe." 

PETTIGREW  A  PATRIOT. 

"In  his  politics  he  was  a  Whig,"  that  is  a  patriot. 
"After  the  peace  he  received  various  invitations  from 
the  neighboring  parts  of  Virginia,  which  were  de^ 
clined." 

Born  in  Pennsylvania,  he  removed  to  South  Carolina^ 
with  his  father's  family.  His  father  was  of  Huguenot 
extraction.  His  ancestors  came  to  Scotland;  from 
thence  emigrating  to  County  Tyrone,  Ireland,  and  from 
the  latter  country  to  America.  The  father,  James  Pet- 
tigiew,  converted  under  the  preaching  of  Whitfield^ 
abandoned  the  Church  of  En|land.  Educated  under 
two  Presbyterian  ministers,  one  of  them  the  famous 
James  Waddel,  (Wirt's  blind  preacher);  "uniting  to  a 
devout  spirit  a  vigorous  intellect,  and  highly  respecta- 
ble mental  acquirements;  and  having  returned  to  the 
faith  from  whicli  his  father  had  withdrawn,  and  to 
which,  for  several  preceding  generations  his  ancestors 
had  belonged,  he  determined  to  devote  himself  to  the 
ministry."  Ue  was  ordained  by  the  Bishop  of  London 
in  1775. 

THE  CHURCH  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA.     • 

In  1789  Bishop  White  suggested  to  Governor  John- 
son of  North  Carolina,  the  propriety  of  organizing  the  P. 
E.  Church  in  that  State.  The  latter  referred  the  matter 
to  Rev.  Mr.  Pettigrew,  who  did  not  succeed  in  securing 
a  Convention  until  May,  1794.  On  that  occasion  a  con- 
stitution was  framed  and  adopted,  and  Mr.  Pettigrew 
elected  Bishop. 

"With  regard  to  this  honor  he  sincerely  said,  Nolo 
Episcopari;  the  state  of  his  health  seemed  absolutely  to 
forbid  it;  but  in  the  depressed  state  of  the  Church,  and 
the  scattered  situation  of  its  ministers,  the  acceptance 
of  this  part  was  deemed  by  his  fellow  Christians  a  duty^ 
and  he  yielded.  Various  alarms  of  yellow  fever  at 
*Norfolk  and  Philadelphia,  with  their  accompanying 
quarantine,  cutting  off  all  communication,  prevented 
him  from  meeting  the  General  Convention  for  some 
years,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  declining  health 
rendered  him  unequal  to  the  exertion.  Though  he 
was  thus  unable  to  put  the  finishing  stroke  to  the  founda- 


A 


ww^    ^ 


si 


« 


NOTES. 


tion,  yet  his  labore  in  rescuing  tlie  ministers  and  their 
parishes  from  the  disconnected  state  in  which  they 
were  disposed  to  continue,  and  in  increasing  and  diffu- 
sing a  zeal  for  religion,  were  of  great  service,  not  only 
in  the  cause  of  the  Church,  but  of  Christianity  in 
general."    Life  of  Iredell,  II.,  592. 

HIS  ZEAL  FOR  EDUCATION. 

Mr.  Pettigrew,  like  the  two  neighboring  Bisliops, 
Smith  and  Madison,  entered  warmly  into  the  matter  of 
education.  He  was  greatly  instrumental  in  establish- 
ing the  University.  Such  was  his  conviction  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  measure,  and  his  zeal  for  its  success, 
that  once  being  compelled  to  choose  between  the 
General  Convention,  anfl  a  meeting  of  the  Friends  of 
the  University,  he  preferred  the  latter. 

Moore  in  his  Hist.  North  Carolina,  1,494,  writes:  ^*In 
1776  not  more  than  six  established  ministei-s  were  to  be 
fomid  in  the  State.  Kev.  Charles  Earll  of  Edenton, 
and  Adam  Boyd  of  Wilmington,  were  devoted  Wliigs. 
.  .  .  Bishop  Pettigrew  won  the  esteem  and  confidence 
of  all  Christians,  and  was  their  earnest  co-adjutor  in 
-every  good  work.  Edward  Dromgoole,  the  JSIethodist 
Missionary,  then  planting  the  earliest  churches  of  that 
faith  in  North  Carolina,  and  othei-s  bore  testimony 
to  the  noble  charity  of  liis  creed  and  practice.'' 

His  duties  as  a  minister  were  very  onerous;  as  he  had 
three  or  four  counties  under  liis  charge,  and  was  ex- 
pected to  preach  a  funeral  sermon  for  every  res])ectable 
parishioner.  He  had,  also,  to  exercise  his  ministry  under 
the  disadvantage  of  a  sickly  climate.  The  death  of 
Rev.  Mr.  Earll  cast  upon  him  the  care  of  that  whole 
section. 

In  1794  he  built  Pettigrew  Chapel  near  Lake  Scu[>- 
pernong  which  he  presented  to  the  Church.  From 
this  time  till  his  death  in  1807,  he  refused  to  receive  any 
compensation  for  his  services.  ''An  enlightened, 
cheerful  and  consistent  Christianity i)ervaded  his  whole 
life,  and  particularly  characterized  him  in  his  domestic 
relations."  * 

AN  ELOQUENT  AND  FITTING  EULOGY. 

The  Edenton  Gazette  notices:  ''The  death  of  that 
zealous  and  venerable  disciple  of  the  blessed  Jesus,  the 
Bev.  Charles  Pettigrew,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 


\ 


NOTES. 


4G 


copal  Church  in  this  State,  who  died  at  his  house  in 
Tyrrel  County  on  the  7th  of  April  last,  (1807).  To  do 
justice  to  the  character  of  this  pious  and  excellent  man 
would  require  talents  which  we  have  not  ihe  happiness 
to  possess,  and  far  exceeds  the  narrow  limits  of  this 
paper.  His  public  ministrations  in  this  place  for 
many  years  render  eulogv  unnecessary.  His  chaste 
and  classical  discourses,  his  fervid  and  animated  devo- 
tion, his  irreproachable  and  evangelical  life,  will  long, 
very  long,  be  remembered  with  melancholy  regret  by 
those  who  enjoyed  the  advantage  of  his  public  admoni- 
tions and  instructions.  In  him  were  exemplified  that 
^simplicity  and  godly  sincerity'  which  are  the  perfec- 
tion of  Christian  character.  Oppressed  by  the  infirm- 
ities of  a  feeble  constitution  and  frequent  disease,  his 
cheerfulness  did  not  desert  him.  As  the  world  and  its 
Ueeting  joys  receded  from  his  view  his  faith  in  Christ 
and  hope  of  immortal  glory  acquired  additional  vigor. 
*  *  *  *  'Mark  the  perfect  man  and  behold  the  upright; 
for  the  end  of  that  man  is  peace.'  " 

A  TRUE  REFOHMED  EPISCOPALIAN. 

We  have  quoted  the  greater  part  of  this  striking  and 
beautiful  eulogium  on  this  true  Apostolic  bishop,  that 
his  memory  may  receive  that  veneration  from  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church  which  is  his  due.  In  his  pat- 
riotic devotion  to  his  Country;  in  his  unbounded  affec- 
tion for  Christians  of  all  names;  in  his  fraternal  inter- 
course with  the  Church  universal;  in  his  unceasing 
devotion  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  rather  than  to 
human  forms  of  worship;  in  his  successful  furtherance 
of  Gospel  unity,  we  justly  claim  him  as  a  Reformed 
Episcopalian.  He  stands  forth  a  beautiful  model  to  all 
Christian  ministers. 

AVliile  the  zealous  champions  of  a  boasted  Episcopal, 
Digital  Succession,  and  an  undeviating  adherence  to  the 
phrases  of  a  human  Liturgy,  are  held  up  to  admira- 
tion; this  eminent  man  of  God,  this  Revolutionary 
l)atriot,  this  zealous  evangelist  and  successful  preacher, 
like  others,  has  not  received  from  the  Communion  he  so 
faithfully  served,  the  honored  remembrance  which  is 
his  due. 

NEGLECT  OF  THE  SOUTHERN    CHURCH. 

5o  much  absorbed  was  the  Church  in  its  recent  union 


44 


NOTES. 


with  the  High  Church  Loyalists,  that  its  more  important 
interests  in  other  portions  of  the  land  were  neglected. 
White,  in  his  Memoirs,  p.  172,  referring  to  the  applica- 
tion from  North  Carolina,  in  1794,  and  the  failure  of 
Mr.  Pettigrew  to  appear,  writes,  "Why  notliing  was 
done  afterwards  for  the  carrying  the  design  into  effect, 
is  not  known,  unless  it  be  the  decease  of  the  Reverend 
person  in  question,  which  must  have  happened  not  long 
alter. "  As  the  bishop-elect  survived  thirteen  years,  the 
want  of  interest  manifested  in  the  matter  on  the  part 
of  the  Presiding  Bishop,  is  of  a  marked  character.  But 
the  ne^v  departure  of  1789,  had  impressed  a  new  charac- 
ter upon  the  Church. 

A  geneml  decline  pervaded  the  Church  at  the  South. 
When  at  length,  sixteen  years  after  the  death  of  the 
Ai)ostolic  Pettigrew,  the  Church  in  North  Carolina 
received  a  new  bishop,  unfortunately  he  belonged  to 
the  new  regime.  His  views  may  be  gathered  from  a 
single  paragraph  from  a  sermon— "On  the  doctrine  of 
Divine  right  in  the  ministry,  I  hold  and  teach,  that  it 
can  l)e  derived  only  from  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  by  succession  in  the  Church,  through  the 
line  of  Bishops  as  distinct  from  Presbyters;  that  it  is 
essential  to  the  validity  of  the  Sacraments,  and  from 
its  very  nature  incapable  of  any  graduation.  Tt  is 
either  Divine  right  or  no  right  at  all."  See  Bishop 
Ravenscroft's  Works,  Vol.  1. 

And  when  a  regularly  consecrated  successor  to  Rav- 
enscroft  was  afterwards  sent,  imbued  witli  Non-juring 
sentiments,  that  system  was  carried  out  to  its  logical 
conclusion,  and  the  bishop  landed  in  the  Church  of 
Rome. 

In  a  sermon  delivered  shortly  after  the  sad  persersion 
of  this  bishop,  Rev.  Charles  C.  Pinckney,  of  diarles- 
ton,  S.  C,  a  worthy  member  of  an  illustrious  family, 
remarks:  "Bishop  Ives  used  to  boast  that  ho  was  a 
Churchman  of  the  Hobart  and  Ravenscroft  school." 
We  admit  his  claim;  and  apprehend  that  lie  had  only 
learned  too  well  the  lessons  taught  in  that  High  Church 
Semmary. 

"He  rebaptized  all  who  entered  our  Chur.!.  from 
other  denominations,  though  baptized  as  adults  else- 
where; once  giving  as  a  reason  to  the  writer  that  he  had 
no  respect  for  Sectarian  baptism.    All  non-Episcopal 


NOTES. 


45 


, 


bodies  he  despised,  counting  the  loss  of  Episcopacy 
enough  to  cut  them  off  from  God^s  favor. 

"May  this  fall  of  one  of  our  bishops,  recall  to 
the  remembrance  of  the  Church,  the  warning  voice  of 
a  wiser,  and  an  older  man;  with  wonderful  forecast, 
Bishop  White  often  protested  against  misunderstanding 
the  word  'Priest,'  in  the  Levitical  and  Romish  sense. 
He  declares  it  to  be  synonymous  with  ^Presbyter,'  and 
in  no  wise  a  mediating,  or  sacrificing,  or  absolving 
officer." 

Yet  with  a  strange  inconsistency,  and  inexplicable 
weakness,  to  please  Bishop  Seabury,  Bishop  White  re- 
stored the  word  "priest,"  after  he  had  banished  it  fioin 
the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Revolution. 

It  has  been  left  to  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church, 
following  the  example  of  the  English  Reformers,  and 
the  Revolutionary  Fathers,  again  to  eject  the  fatal 
word,  with  other  expressions,  necessarily  promotive  of 
Roman,  Mediaeval  and  Anti-Christian  errors  and  prac- 
tices, as  history  has  abundantly  shown. 

We  are  calling  attention  to  the  original  Constitution 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  the  First 
Prayer  Book  as  framed  by  the  Patriots  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, and  to  the  extraordinary  and  radical  changes 
made  a  few  years  afterwards  in  the  grand  work  of  this 
distinguished  company  of  ecclesiastical  legislatoi-s. 

An  account  has  been  given  of  the  more  eminent  of 
the  clergymen  wiio  took  part  in  this  important  transac- 
tion. Of  twenty-two  who  were  present  in  the  Conven- 
tions, we  have  noticed  the  six  most  prominent,  five  of 
whom  were  bishops  or  bishops-elect. 

The  laymen  who  were  engaged  in  the  work  of  laying 
the  ecclesiastical  foundations,  which  they  believed 
were  to  be  permanent,  were  forty-two  in  number, 
twelve  of  whom  on  account  of  their  eminence  as  states- 
men and  jurists  we  shall  proceed  briefly  to  describe.  In 
intellect  and  reputation,  as  well  as  fitness  for  their 
mission,  they  were  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  their  cleri- 
cal co-laborers. 

DEPUTIES  FROM  NEW  JERSEY. 

New  Jersey  was  represented  by  a  veiy  distinguished 
deputy.  Hon.  David  Brearley  served  with  distinction 
as  Lt.  Colonel  in  the  War  of  the  Revolution.  He  rose 
rapidly  in  the  legal  profession,  was  appointed  U.  S- 


46 


NOTES. 


District  Judge,  and  soon  reached  the  highest  honor, 
that  of  Chief  Justice  of  his  State,  which  he  held  for 
nine  years.  He  is  especially  deserving  of  record  as  be- 
ing a  member  of  that  famous  body  by  whom  the  Con- 
stitution of  our  Republic  was  framed.  He  was  also  a 
member  of  the  State  Constitutional  Convention.  No 
American  has  held  more  distinguished  positions  at  such 
an  early  age.  He  died  when  forty-four  years  old,  ere 
he  had  reached  the  full  maturity  of  his  powers. 

John  Rutherford  may  properly  be  noticed  among 
the  eminent  men  of  New  Jersey,  though  at  the  time  a 
delegate  from  New  York.  Rutherford,  who  was  a 
nephew  of  General  Lord  Stirling,  had  served  as  Colonel 
in  the  Revolution.  He  was  Presidential  elector  for  New 
Jei-sey  on  several  occasions,  and  also  U.  S.  Senator. 
Appointed  by  the  Council  of  the  State  a  vestryman  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  1784,  and  made  Clerk  of  the  Corpo- 
ration, he  resigned  in  1787,  on  moving  from  the  State. 
The  thanks  of  the  Board  were  presented  him  for  ''the 
utmost  attention  paid  by  him  to  the  interests  of  the 
Corporation,  and  the  duties  of  his  station  as  clerk." 
13errians'  Hist,  of  Trinity  Church,  p.  185. 

THE  PENNSYLVANIA  DELEGATION. 

From  Pennsylvania  came  more  than  one-third  of  the 
entire  lay  delegations,  and  among  them  were  men  of 
national  reputation. 

Thomas  Hartley  was  a  distinguished  lawjer,  a  Colo- 
nel in  the  War,  and  in  Congress  from  1789  to  1800. 

Edward  Shippen,a  very  eminent  jurist,  after  holding 
many  distinguished  positions,  became  the  Chief  Justice 
of  the  State.  A  biographer  thus  sums  up  his  character: 
•'As  a  valuable  citizen,  an  accomplished  lawyer  and 
judge,  remarkable  for  the  great  extent  and  minute  ac- 
curacy of  his  knowledge,  he  must  ever  be  conspicuous 
among  those  worthies  who  have  won,  by  their  virtues 
and  their  talents,  an  imperishable  name."  National 
Portraits,  Vol.  1. 

Richard  Peters  was  Captain  in  the  Revolution,  and 
Secretary  of  War,  from  1776  to  1781.  He  retired  with 
the  express  thanks  of  Congress.  Returning  as  Repre- 
sentative, he  served  several  yeai-s,  and  declining  a  Fis- 
cal oflice  tendered  by  Washington,  was  appointed  U.  S. 
Judge,  an  office  which  he  filled  with  great  distinction 
for  thirty-six  years.    Lossing  writes:    "Next  to  Rob- 


\ 


NOTES. 


47 


«rt  Morris,  Mr.  Peters  was  one  of  the  most  efficient 
men  in  providing  the  ways  and  means  of  carrying  on 
the  war.    In  the  summer  of  1781,  Washington  pre- 
pared to  attack  the  British  in  New  York,  and  was  ex- 
pecting the  aid  of  the  Count  De  Grasse.,  with  his  squad- 
ron of  French  ships  of  war.    He  received  notice  that 
De  Grasse's  aid  could  not  be  given.    Washington  was 
greatly  disappointed,  but  instantly  he  conceived  the  ex- 
pedition to  Virginia,  which  resulted  in  the  capture  of 
Cornwallis.    Peters  and  Morris   were  both  in  Wash- 
ington's camp  on  the  Hudson.    At  the  moment  when 
he  conceived  the  Virginia  expedition   he  turned  to 
Petere,  and  said,  'What  can  you  do  for  me?'  'With 
money   everything— without  it,    nothing,'  Peters  re- 
plied, at  the  same  time  casting  an  anxious  look  toward 
Morris  the  great  financier.    'Let  me  know  the  sum 
you  desire,'  said  Morris.  Before  noon,  Washington  had 
completed  his  plans  and  estimates.    Morris  promised 
the  money  and  raised  it  upon  his  individual  security." 
Mr.  Peters  superintended  the  provision  and  preparation 
of  the  necessary  supplies  for  this  important  and  decisive 
enterprise.    "Our  Countrymen,"  p.  170. 

EMINENT  SOUTH  CAROLINAINS. 

South  Carolina  was  ably  represented  in  these  Con- 
ventions. Hon.  John  Parker  was  a  member  of  Con- 
gress at  the  time  he  assisted  in  founding  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church.  Hon.  John  Rutledge,  son  of 
the  eminent  statesman  of  the  same  name,  distinguished 
himself  both  in  the  Legislature  of  his  State  and  in  the 
U.  S.  Congress.  Hon.  Jacob  Read,  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, while  in  the  Convention,  became  U.  S.  Senator, 
presided  over  that  body,  and  for  many  years  held  the 
office  of  U.  S.  District  Judge.  The  most  distinguished 
delegate  from  the  State  was  Hon.  Chas.  Pinckney. 
The  name  of  Charles  Pinckney  is  so  identified  with 
the  era  of  the  Revolution  and  the  Constitution,  that  it 
is  not  necessary  here  to  recall  his  history.  As  mem- 
ber of  Congress,  of  the  Senate,  as  a  framer  of  this 
country's  Constitution,  and  repeatedly  Governor  of  his 
native  State,  and  as  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  he  occu- 
pies a  pre-eminent  position  in  the  national  annals.  Curtis, 
in  his  Hist,  of  Constitution  U.  S.,  1.  p.  486,  enumerates 
him  among  the  "men  of  great  distinction  and  ability, 
-celebrated,  before  and  since  the  Convention,  in  that 


\ 


48 


NOTES. 


period  of  the  political  history  of  America  which  com- 
menced with  the  Revolution,  and  closed  with  the 
eighteenth  century." 

VIRGINIA  NOBLY  REPRESENTED. 

Virginia,  whose  early  Diocesan  Conventions  were  re- 
splendent  with  great  lievolutionary  names,  sent  two  of 
her  most  prominent  statesmen  to  organize  the  American 
Episcopal  Church. 

Hon.  Cyrus  Griffin,  honorably  connected  with  fami- 
lies in  England,  entered  warmly  into  the  defense  of  the 
just  rights  of  the  colonies,  and  pledged  his  life  and 
property  on  the  momentous  struggle.  He  took  a  dis- 
tinguished part  in  Congress,  and  during  the  formation 
of  the  Constitution,  was  President  of  that  Body.  The 
unanimity  with  w^hich  he  was  selected  by  the  Diocesan 
Convention  of  Virginia  for  such  a  responsible  position, 
indicates  the  great  respect  which  was  felt  for  his  ability 
and  character,  by  that  distinguished  assembly. 

He  was  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Admi- 
ralty, and  Judge  of  U.  S.  Court  from  1789  to  1810. 
Washington  when  appointing  him  Indian  Commissioner 
styles  him  "a  regular  student  of  law,  having  filled  an 
important  office  in  the  Union  in  the  line  of  it,  and  be- 
ing besides  a  man  of  competent  abilities  and  pure  char- 
acter." 

GOVERNOR  JOHN  PAGE. 

Hon.  John  Page,  one  of  Virginia's  most  noted  sons, 
was  among  the  most  efficient  and  prominent  in  the 
work  of  the  Convention.  Bishop  White's  mention  of 
him  indicates  the  active  part  he  took  in  Committees 
and  on  the  floor  of  the  House.  No  one  in  the  Conven- 
tion, from  ability  and  study  of  the  matters  involved, 
was  more  fully  fitted  for  the  great  Christian  work  in 
which  these  master  minds  were  engaged. 

Mr.  Page's  residence  was  Rosewell,  on  the  York 
river,  one  of  the  most  capacious  and  extensive  resi- 
dences in  the  State;  built  by  an  eminent  ancestor  of  the 
same  name.  Jefferson  and  Page  were  schoolmates  and 
most  intimate  friends  through  life.  Howe,  in  his  His- 
torical Annals,  describes  the  two  honored  statesmen 
enjoying  from  the  roof  of  the  mansion  the  magnificent 
prospect  of  ten  miles  in  extent,  and  discoursing  on 
matters    pertaining  to  the  welfare  of  that  Nation, 


' 


NOTES. 


49 


which  both  had  been  greatly  instrumental  in  calling 
into  existence. 

Mr.  Page  at  once  embraced  ardently  the  side  of  the 
Colonists,  and  like  Cyrus  Griffin,  risked  his  great  estates 
and  his  life  on  the  issue.  At  an  early  period,  when 
Lord  Dunmore,  the  Governor,  had  seized  the  powder 
and  arms  of  tlie  Commonwealth  in  order  to  cut  off  the 
means  of  military  defense,  Mr.  Page  was  the  only 
member  of  his  Council  who  stood  out  against  his  arbi- 
trary measures.  In  his  autobiography,  Mr.  Page 
writes,  "I  advised  the  Governor  to  give  up  the  powder 
and  arms  he  had  removed  from  the  magazine.  But  he 
flew  into  an  outrageous  passion,  smiting  his  fist  on  the 
table,  and  saying,  'Mr.. Page,  I  am  astonished  at  you.' 
I  calmly  replied  I  had  done  my  duty  and  had  no  otiier 
advice  to  give."    Rives'  Life  of  Madison,  L,  p.  94. 

BISHOP  3IEADE'S  EUL0Gir3I. 

Col.  Page  was  with  Washington  on  one  of  his  expe- 
ditions against  the  Indians,  and  commanded  the  militia 
to  oppose  the  invasion  of  Gen.  Arnold.  Bishop  Meade 
writes:  "He  was  the  associate  and  intimate  friend  of 
Mr.  Jefferson  at  college,  and  his  follower  in  politics 
afterwards,  though  always  differing  with  him  on  relig- 
ious subjects,  endeavoring  to  his  latest  years,  by  corres- 
pondence, to  convince  him  of  his  errors.  He  was  a 
zealous  friend  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  defended 
in  the  Legislature,  wiiat  he  conceived,  w'ere  her  rights, 
against  those  political  friends  with  whom  he  agreed  on 
other  points.  So  zealous  was  he  in  her  cause  that  some 
wished  him  to  take  Orders,  with  a  view  to  being  Bishop 
of  Virginia.  His  name  may  be  seen  on  the  journals  of  the 
earliest  Conventions  of  Virginia.  I  have  a  pamphlet  in 
my  possession  in  which  his  name  is  in  connection  with 
those  of  Robert  C.  Nicholas,  and  Colonel  Bland,  as 
charging  one  of  tlie  clergy  in  or  about  Williamsburg 
with  false  views  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  and  of 
the  eternity  of  the  punishment  of  the  damned.  His 
theological  library  was  well  stored  for  that  day.  The 
early  fathers  of  Greek  and  Latin,  with  some  other  val- 
uable books,  were  presented  to  myself  by  one  of  his 
sons,  and  form  a  part  of  my  library.  It  may  not  be 
amiss  to  rejieat  what  I  have  said  in  a  preface  to  the 
little  volume  written  as  a  legacy  by  the  first  of  this 
name  to  his  posterity,— that  seven  of  them  are  now 


fiO 


NOTES. 


ministers  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  two  who  were 
such  are  deceased."  "Old  Churches  of  Virginia,"  I. 
148.  Bishop  Meade  says  further,  p.  333:  "Mr.  Page 
was  not  only  the  patriot,  soldier,  and  politician,  the 
well-read  theologian,  and  zealous  Churchman — so  that, 
as  I  have  said  before,  some  asked  him  to  take  Orders^ 
with  a  view  to  being  the  tirst  Bishop  of  Virginia,— but 
he  was  a  most  affectionate  domestic  character.  His 
tenderness  as  a  father  and  attention  to  his  children  is 
seen  in  the  fact  tliat,  when  attending  Congress  held  ia 
New  York  in  1789,  he  was  continually  writing  very  short 
letters  to  his  little  ones,  even  before  they  could  read 
them." 

In  one  of  these  letters  Mr.  Page  writes  of  Xew 
York:  "This  town  is  not  half  as  large  as  Phila- 
delphia, nor  in  any  manner  to  be  compared  to  it  in 
beauty  and  elegance.  Philadelphia,  I  am  well  assured, 
has  more  inhabitants  than  Boston  and  New  York 
together.  The  streets  here  are  badly  paved,  very  dirty, 
narrow  as  well  as  crooked,  and  filled  up  with  a  strange 
variety  of  wooden,  stone  and  brick  buildings,  full  of 
hogs  and  mud." 

Mr.  Page  was  one  of  tlie  most  conspicuous  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Virginia 
Constitution;  member  of  the  first  U.  S.  Congress,  and 
Governor  of  the  State  from  1802  to  1805.  He  held 
other  public  offices  till  his  death  in  1808. 

President  Madison  thus  warmly  eulogizes  him:  "The 
memory  of  Governor  Page  will  always  be  classed  with 
that  of  the  most  distinguishetl  patriots  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. Nor  was  he  less  endeared  to  his  friends,  among 
whom  I  had  an  intimate  pla(;e,  by  the  interesting 
accomplishments  of  his  mind  and  the  warmth  of  his 
social  affections,  than  he  was  to  his  country  by  the 
evidence  he  gave  of  devotion  to  the  republicanism  of 
its  institutions."    Rives'  Life,  I.  76. 

Pre-eminently  com|)etent  was  this  great  and  good 
man  for  the  work  in  which  with  Griffith  and  Griffin 
of  his  State  he  was  associated,  and  we  may,  from 
a  knowledge  of  the  admirable  fitness  of  these  remark- 
able men,  appreciate  the  jistonishment  and  grief 
with  which  the  Churchmen  of  Virginia  beheld  in  a 
few  years  the  summary  abandonment  and  overthrow 
of  their  Constitution  and  Prayer  Book,  in  order  to  pro- 
pitiate a  few  clerical  loyalists,  of  the  most  extreme  eo- 


NOTES. 


51 


I 


clesiastical  stripe,  and  therefore  doubly  obnoxious  to 
liberal-minded  patriotic  Americans. 

THE  SAD  RESULT. 

That  the  Church  in  Virginia,  staggered  by  such 
wholly  unexpected  and  utterly  inconsistent  action, 
should  have  lost  hope  of  success,  and  ceased  further  to 
progress,  was  the  legitimate,  logical  result  of  the 
marvelous  blunders  of  the  ecclesiastical  legislation  of 
the  Conventions  of  1789. 

It  was  reserved  for  Bishops  Moore  and  Meade,  men  of 
the  stamp  of  Griffith  and  Griffin  and  Page;  of  Jay  and 
Duane;  of  P<^ters  and  Pinckney,  in  later  years,  to  re- 
cover in  some  measiu-e,  the  ground  so  hopelessly  and 
rashly  lost.  That  Diocese  is  suffering  now  from  its 
continued  organic  connection  with  a  Body  hoi^elessly 
infected  with  mediaeval  error  in  its  Lituriiy  and  Offices, 
and  with  feudal  principles  imbedded  in  its  Constitu- 
tion and  Laws. 

If  forty  years  ago,  when  in  General  Convention  it 
failed  in  its  earnest  efforts  to  check  the  irresistible 
development  of  the  semi-Romish  elements  within  the 
Church,  through  the  agency  of  the  Oxford  Tract  move- 
ment; it  had  then  asserted  its  independent,  inalienable. 
Christian  rights,  and  had  severed  its  connection  with 
an  organization  drifting  away  from  the  Word  of  God, 
and  pure  Gospel  truth;  a  nobler,  purer,  and  more  ex- 
tensive Communion  would  have  been  the  happy  result 
of  such  a  courageous  return  to  the  sound  doctrine,  pure 
worship,  and  manly,  liberal  spirit  of  the  pioneer  ec- 
clesiastical architects  of  the  Revolution. 

No  delegation  exercised  a  more  powerful  influence 
upon  the  General  Conventions  of  1785  and  1786  than 
the  one  from  New  York. 

The  position,  patriotism,  and  learning  of  Bishop 
Provoost,  the  exalted  services  and  character  of  John 
Jay,  the  great  ability  and  influence  of  James  Duane, 
with  the  attendance  of  Colonel  John  Rutherford,  ves- 
tryman and  clerk  of  Trinity  Corporation,  wlio  also  ap- 
peared as  a  Representative  from  the  same  State,  con- 
tributed greatly  to  the  efficiency  and  success  of  the 
work. 

The  result  was  the  free,  American  Episcopal  Consti- 
tution of  which  that  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church 
is  the  counterpart.    The  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book 


52 


NOTES. 


on  a  sound  Scriptural  and  Protestant  basis  was  largely 
due  to  these  eminent  Christian  statesmen. 

Born  in  :New  York  city  in  February,  1732,  the  same 
year  and  month  with  Washington,  and  educated  for 
tlie  Law  in  the  office  of  the  eminent  Colonial  counsel, 
James  Alexander,  father  of  Lord  Stirling,  Duane  was 
admitted  as  attorney  in  1754.  In  1759  he  married  the 
eldest  daughter  of  Colonel  Robert  Livingston,  propri- 
etor of  Livingston  Manor.  From  this  connection,  and 
the  large  estate  inherited  from  his  father,  and  his  own 
native  talent  he  soon  attained  extensive  practice  and 
influence  in  his  profession.  His  offices  before  the  war 
were  Clerk  in  Chancery,  and  temporarily,  Attorney 
General. 


PUBLIC  SERVICES  OF  JAMES  DUANE. 

The  people  of  New  York  city  and  the  neighborhood, 
elected  Mr.  Duane  to  the  Congress  of  1774  when  the 
Colonial  authorities  refused  to  act.  From  the  journal 
of  John  Adams  it  appears  .tliat  Duane  was  the  most 
prominent  man  in  that  delegation.  Duane  and  Jay 
were  appointed  to  the  Committee  to  state  the  rights 
of  the  Colonies.  Duane  was  re-elected  to  the  Congress 
of  1775.  Recalled  home  with  Mr.  Jay  to  assist  in 
framing  a  State  Constitution,  he  was  thereby  prevented 
with  his  illustrious  co-patriot  from  signing  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence,  passed  during  their  absence. 
His  name  is  appended  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
of  1781. 

Leaving  New  York  on  the  8th  of  June,  1774,  he 
never  returned  until  he  entered  it  in  triumph  on  the 
evacuation  of  the  British  in  1783.  In  the  same  year  he 
served  as  a  Senator  in  the  State  Legislature,  and  also 
as  one  of  the  Council  for  the  Government  of  the 
Southern  District  of  New  l^'ork. 

When  Duane  entered  his  native  city,  "he  found  his 
houses  in  King  (now  Pine)  street,  and  at  the  comer  of 
Water  and  Fly  streets,  almost  entirely  destroyed.  His 
farm,  as  he  calls  it,  consisting  of  about  twenty  acres, 
at  what  is  now  called  Gramercie  Park,  and  its  vicinity, 
was  in  pretty  good  order,  the  house  having  been  occu- 
pied by  one  of  the  British  Generals."  Jones' Mem. 
Doc.  Hist.  N.  Y.,  lY.,  1077. 

In  1784,  the  Common  Council  petitioned  the  Gov- 
ernor to  make  Mr.  Duane  mayor,  "as  no  one,"  they 


NOTES. 


53 


say,  "is  better  qualified,  so  none  will  be  more  accepta- 
ble to  us  and  our  constituents  at  large  than  Mr.  Du- 
ane. Few  have  sacrificed  more  or  deserve  better  from 
their  country." 

Under  him  in  the  Mayor's  Court  where  he  presided 
for  six  years,  were  trained  to  eminence,  Hamilton, 
Burr,  Tronp,  the  Livingstons,  Hoffman  and  others. 
His  decisions  were  all  confirmed  by  the  Supreme 
Court. 

During  a  portion  of  this  period  Duane  also  served  as 
State  Senator,  and  w^as  in  the  Convention  of  New 
Y'^ork,  which  adopted  the  U.  S.  Constitution  in  1788. 
General  Washington  appointed  him  the  First  District 
Judge  for  New  York  when  the  new  Government  went 
into  operation.  After  holding  this  office  for  five  years, 
he  retired  to  his  extensive  estates  at  Duanesburgh, 
where  he  died  in  February,  1797. 

IIIS  INTEREST  IN  CHRISTIAN  WORK. 

The  immense  amount  of  business  transacted  by  Mr. 
Duane  would  seem  to  preclude  him  from  taking  part 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  but  we  learn  from  Judge  Jones 
that,  "no  layman  of  the  Episcopal  Church  was  more 
instrumental  than  himself  in  uniting  all  its  members 
under  one  Constitution,  and  in  obtaining  the  Conse- 
cration of  her  first  Bishops."    Mem.  p.  1083. 

"We  find  him  taking  an  active  part  on  the  side  of 
the  Church  ^  *  *  *  in  tlie  disputes  about  taxation 
by  authority  of  Parliament  alone,  when  such  au- 
thority was  first  exercised.  He  was  a  decided  Church- 
man, but  like  his  friends  Jay  and  Chancellor  Living- 
ston, he  was  a  strenuous  advocate  both  for  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty." 

"In  1784,  the  Council  took  possession  of  the  property 
of  Trinity  Church,  set  aside  an  election  of  vestrymen 
that  had  been  held  just  before  the  Americans  regained 
New  York,  and  ordered  a  new  election,  in  which  Mr. 
Duane  was  chosen  one  of  the  Church  Wardens,  and 
other  Whigs,  vestrymen.  This  election  w^as  afterwards 
confirmed  by  Act  of  Legislature,-  and  the  persons 
elected  chose  as  rector  of  the  Church,  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Provoost,  a  Whig,  who  had  left  New  York  after  the 
British  took  possession,  and  who  was  Afterwards  the 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese.  The  property  was  afterwards 
restored,  and  Mr.  Duane  continued  the  elected  Church 


54 


NOTES. 


NOTES. 


SS' 


Warden  so  long  as  he  remained  a  resident  of  the  City 
of  New  York."    Jones'  Mem.,  p.  1077. 

In  April,  1794,  Mr.  Duane  resigned  the  Wardenship 
which  he  had  held  for  ten  years,  having  been  also  a 
vestryman  of  the  Corporation  for  several  years  previous 
to  the  Revolution.  Resolutions  highly  expressive  of 
respect  were  transmitted  by  the  vestry  to  Mr.  Duane, 
through  his  intimate  friend  of  congenial  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  views,  Bishop  Provoost.  Before  his  death 
Mr.  Duane  erected  a  church  edifice  at  his  individual 
expense,  which  he  presented  to  the  pai'ish  at  Duanes- 
burgh. 

THE  STANDING  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  JAMES  DUANE. 

His  biographer  tells  us  that  he  was  a  man  of  genial 
nature  and  much  beloved  l)y  his  friends.  This  fact 
comes  out  incidentally  in  a  letter  from  Robert  Morris  to 
John  Jay,  written  Feb.  5,  1777.  Morris  was  second 
only  to  Washington  in  services  during  the  Revolution. 
Botta,inliis"  War  of  Independence,"  III.  343,  writes  of 
Morris:  ''The  Americans  certainly  owed,  and  still  owe, 
as  much  acknowledgment  to  the  financial  operations 
of  Robert  Morris,  as  to  the  negotiations  of  Benjamin 
Franklin,  or  even  to  the  arms  of  Washington."  In  his 
letter  to  Jay,  Morris  writes:  "I  hate  to  pay  compli- 
ments, and  would  avoid  the  appearance  of  doing  it,  but 
I  cannot  refrain  from  saying  I  love  Duane,  admire 
Livingston,  and  have  an  epithet  for  you  if  I  had  been 
writing  to  another."  Jay's  Life  I,  60.  On  October 
8th,  nai,  at  a  Convention  of  Clergy  and  Laity,  while 
Chancellor  Livingston  was  Warden  of  Trinity  Church, 
he  was  appointed  Trustee  of  the  Corporation  for  the 
Relief  of  Widows  and  Orphans  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  together  with  Jay  and  Morris.  To  the  same 
Board  were  appointed  Duer,  Rutherford,  Governor 
Lewis,  Hamilton,  Alsop,  and  Walter  Livingston,  to- 
gether with  Governor  Morris,  of  Philadelphia.  In  the 
Convention  which  apiwinted  them  sat  Col.  Marinus 
Willett,  of  New  York,  and  Richard  Willing,  of  Phila- 
delphia.  Such  were  some  of  the  eminent  names  con- 
nected with  the  infancy  of  the  American  Episcopal 
Church. 

With  reference  to  the  general  view  of  the  conspicu- 
ous ability  and  services  of  James  Duane,  we  will  con- 
fine ourselves  to  the  testimony  of  Alexander  Hamilton^ 


himself  confessedly  the  most  commanding  intellect  of 
his  time.  Hamilton,  in  a  memorable  letter  written  to- 
Duane  while  in  Congress,  in  1780,  in  which  he  outlines 
with  extraordinary  power  the  future  Constitution  of 
our  Country,  closes  thus:  ''My  dear  sir,  this  letter  is 
hastily  written,  and  with  a  confidential  freedom,  not  as- 
to  a  member  of  Congress,  whose  feelings  may  be  sore  at 
the  prevailing  clamor,  but  as  to  a  friend  who  is  in  a 
situation  to  remedy  public  disorders, — who  wishes  for 
nothing  so  much  as  truth,  and  who  is  desirous  for  in- 
formation even  from  those  less  capable  of  judging  than 
himself."    Hamilton's  Life  I,  pp.  284-305. 

It  remains  to  present  a  notice  of  John  Jay,  and  then 
there  will  be  stated  the  intelligent  and  earnest  efforts 
of  Jay  and  Duane  in  connection  with  Bishop  Provoost 
and  others  to  organize  the  Episcopal  Church  on  a  free. 
Scriptural,  American  basis,  and  to  preserve  it  from  the 
attempts  of  Bishop  Seabury  and  his  party  to  substitute 
the  feudal,  illiberal,  and  Semi-Romish  principles  of  the* 
Non- Jurors,  which  have  ever  proved  such  a  blight  to 
the  Church.  While  interesting,  it  is  a  melancholy  his- 
tory full  of  warning;  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  satis- 
factory and  strengthening  to  Reformed  Episcopalians- 
to  be  assured  that  they  are  in  the  fullest  sympathy  with 
the  great  Revolutionary  Patriots,  whose  services  to  the 
Church,  as  well  as  the  State,  we  have  been  privileged 
briefly  to  notice. 

THE  MOST  EMINENT  OF  REFORMED  EPISCOPALIANS. 

We  have  reserv^ed  for  the  last  notice  of  the  founders 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  Revolution, 
the  most  eminent  of  that  illustrious  assembly  of  Chris- 
tian legislators,  regarded  by  many  as  the  purest  states- 
man, of  the  first  order  of  that  unrivalled  company  of 
heroes,  who  foun<led  our  Republic. 

Of  John  Jay,  the  Historian  Hildreth  remarks:  "In 
lofty  disinterestedness,  in  unyielding  integrity,  no  one 
of  the  great  men  of  the  Revolution  approached  so  near 
Washington." 

We  shall  establish  this  position  by  the  testimony  of 
his  contemporaries,  and  inasmuch  as  this  great  man  was  a 
thorough  Reformed  Episcopalian,  and  framed  the 
original  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  upon  the  identi- 
cal principles  which  characterize  our  Communion,  we- 
justly  claim  him  as  belonging  to  us.    We  fortunately^ 


/. 


56 


NOTES. 


moreover,  have  his  successive  protests  against  the  ex- 
clusive, sacerdotal,  arrogant  spirit  which  characterized 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  after  the  Constitution 
and  Prayer  Book  which  he,  with  his  pre-eminent  asso- 
ciates had  constructed,  was  ignored;  and  a  Communion 
based  on  opposite,  anti-American,  unsafe,  and  justly 
unpopular  principles  was  substituted  by  the  General 
Convention  of  1789. 

John  Jay  survived  that  Convention  for  thirty  years. 
He  foresaw  the  disastrous  results  which  might  occur 
through  unwise  legislation,  and  these,  with  his  gifted 
co-laborers,  he  earnestly  labored  to  preclude.  His  wise 
and  faitliful  testimony  may  well  be  pondered  by  Pro- 
testant Episcopalians.  Reformed  Episcopalians  will  be 
strengthened  and  stimulated  by  its  perusal. 

We  have  lingered  longeron  the  history  of  tliese  departed 
Christian  statesmen  because  they  richly  deserve  to  be 
recalled  to  our  remembrance,  who  are  enjoying  the 
fruits  of  their  sufferings,  and  their  heroic  struggles. 

Their  testimony  to  tlie  soundness  and  substantial 
worth  of  our  principles  is  conclusive  and  overwhelming, 
and  inasmuch  as  in  the  contest  for  the  liberties  and 
rights  of  their  country,  they  struggled  and  succeeded 
against  almost  insui)erable  difficulties,  so  may  we, 
who  inherit  their  ecclesiastical  principles,  finally  tri- 
umph, in  our  stand  for  a  primitive,  Scriptural  Episco- 
pacy, and  a  pure,  Protestant  Liturgy. 

iroW  WASHINGTON  REGARDED  .JAY. 

When  President  Washington  assumed  his  Office,  he 
showed  more  confidence  in  John  Jay  than  in  any  other 
of  his  contemporaries,  for  he  offered  him  the  choice  of 
the  offices  within  his  gift.  After  Jay  had  been  con- 
firmed as  Chief  Justice,  Washington  writes  :  "  In  nom- 
inating you  for  the  important  station  which  you  now 
fill,  I  only  acted  in  conformity  with  my  best  judgment, 
but  I  trust  did  a  grateful  thing  to  the  good  citizens  of 
these  United  States."   Writings  of  Washington,  X.,  35. 

THE  OPINION  OF  JOHN  ADAMS. 

Similar  was  the  opinion  entertained  of  him  by  John 
Adams.  ''  I  often  say  that  wljen  my  i-ontidcnco  in  Mr. 
Jay  shall  cease,  I  must  give  up  the  cause  of  contidence 
and  renounce  it  with  all  men,"  were  the  words  of 
Adams;  and  when  he  appointed  him  Chief  Justice, 


NOTES. 


sr 


while  Governor  of  [N'ew  York,  an  office  which  he 
declined,  he  writes:  "I  had  no  permission  from  you 
to  take  this  step,  but  it  appeared  to  me  that  Providence 
has  thrown  in  my  way  an  opportunity  not  only  of 
marking  to  the  public  the  spot  where,  in  my  opinion, 
^he  greatest  mass  of  worth  remained  collected  in  one 
individual,  but  of  furnishing  my  country  with  the  best 
security  its  inhabitants  afforded  against  the  increasing 
dissolution  of  morals."  New  York  Review,  Oct.,  l&H, 
p.  326.    Letters  of  John  Adams,  Dec.  19, 1800. 

EULOGIU^r  OF  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

President  John  Quincy  Adams  in  his  Jubilee  of  the 
Constitution  pronounced  before  the  K.  Y.  Hist. 
Society,  1839,  p.  90,  thus  succinctly  sums  up  the  char- 
acter and  services  of  this  remarkable  man:  "  Mr.  Jay 
was  then  Chief  Justice  of  tlie  United  States.  And  how 
shall  1  dare  to  speak  to  YOU  of  a  native  of  your  own 
State,  and  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments,  not  only  of 
your  State,  but  of  his  country  and  of  human  nature. 
At  the  dawn  of  manhood  he  had  been  one  of  the  dele- 
gates from  the  people  of  New  York,  at  the  first  Conti- 
nental Congress  of  1774.  In  the  course  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary War,  he  had  been  successively  President  of 
Congress,  one  of  their  ministers  in  Europe— one  of  the 
negotiators  of  the  preliminary  and  definitive  treaties 
of  peace,  and  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  the  Con- 
federation Congress  till  the  transition  to  the  Constitu- 
tional government,  and  at  the  organization  of  the 
Judicial  Tribunals  of  the  Union  was  placed  with  the 
unanimous  sanction  of  the  public  voice  at  their  head. 
With  this  thickening  crowd  of  honors  gathering  round 
him  as  he  trod  the  path  of  life,  he  possessed  with  a 
perfectly  self-controlled  ambition,  a  fervently  pious, 
meek  and  quiet,  but  firm  and  determined  spirit.  As 
one  of  the  authors  of  the  Federalist,  and  by  official 
and  personal  influence  as  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
and  as  a  most  respected  citizen  of  New  York  he  had 
contributed  essentially  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion." 

Daniel  Webster  remarked,  Wks.,  I.,  207:  "  When  the 
spotless  ermine  of  the  judicial  robe  fell  on  John  Jay,  it 
touched  nothing  less  spotless  than  itself."  *'  Go  on, 
my  friend,"  writes  Robert  Morris,  "  you  deserve  and 
will  receive  the  gratitude  of  your  Country.    History 


58 


NOTES. 


will  hand  down  your  plaudits  to  posterity.  The  men 
of  the  present  day,  wlio  are  generally  least  grateful  to 
their  contemporaries,  esteem  it  an  honor  to  be  of  your 
acquaintance."    Jay's  Life,  II.,  110. 

Gulian  C.Verplanck  thus  eloquently  expresses  the  gen- 
eral sentiment:  *'A  halo  of  veneration  seemed  to 
encircle  him  as  one  belonging  to  another  world,  though 
lingering  among  us.  When  the  tidings  of  his  death 
<jame  to  us,  they  were  received  through  the  nation,  not 
with  sorrow  or  mourning,  but  with  solemn  awe,  like 
that  with  which  we  read  the  mysterious  passage  of  ancient 
Scripture,  'And  Enoch  walked  with  God,  and  he 

WAS  NOT  FOR  GOD  TOOK  HIM.'  "     Vol.   II.,  p.  463. 
JAY  A  PROTESTANT  CHURCHMAN. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  such  an  eminent  Christian 
statesman  should  take  a  great  interest  in  founding  the 
future  American  Episcopal  Church  to  which  he  was 
intelligently  and  devotedly  attached. 

Mr.  Jay  at  that  time,  with  James  Duane  was  a  War- 
den of  Trinity  Church,  then  as  now  the  most  promi- 
nent parish  of  its  Communion.  A  descendant  of  the 
Huguenots  he  was  a  most  unyielding  Protestant.  He 
was  at  the  same  time  a  thorough  Episcopalian  by  in- 
heritance and  conviction. 

INFLUENCE  OF  CONVERTS  FROM  PURITANISM. 

•  There  was  this  marked  difference  between  the  men 
who  laid  the  original  foundations  of  the  Church  in 
wisdom  and  moderation,  and  those  through  whom 
these  foundations  were  overthrown. 

At  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Bishop  Seabury,  his 
father  was  a  licensed  Congregational  preacher. 

Bishop  Parker  was  educated  for  the  Congregational 
ministry.  Bishop  Bass,  his  predecessor  in  Massachu- 
setts, preached  four  years  as  a  Congregational ist. 

The  father  of  Bishop  Jarvis  renounced  the  Congrega- 
tional Communion  about  the  time  of  his  son's  birth. 

Dr.  Bela  Hubbard  was  a  Congregationalist  at  the 
time  he  graduated  from  college. 

At  the  demand  chiefly  of  these  five  clergymen,  the 
errand  American  Episcopal  work  of  Provoost,  Jay  and 
Duane;  Griffith  and  Page;  Pinckney  and  Peters,  and 
their  pre-eminent  associates;  old  Episcopalians;  was  al- 
lowed to  be  dismantled,  and  the  feudal  product  of  the 


I 


NOTES. 

Stewarts  and  the  Non-Jurors,  to  be  substituted  in  its 
room,  and  thus  it  has  remained  to  the  present  day. 

ECCLESIASTICAL  CHANGES  LEAD  TO  EXTREMES. 

That  the  converts  from  the  Puritan  system  became 
advocates  of  extreme  Episcopal  Liturgical  views  was 
natural,  and  the  general  extravagance  of  sentiment 
in  these  directions  in  the  P.  E.  Communion,  has  its 
origin  in  that  source,  a  change  of  base  on  the  part  of 
so  many  of  its  clergy.  The  late  eminent  Dr.  Nott, 
wisely  remarked;  ''Men  who  go  over  from  one  denom- 
ination to  another  always  stand  up  more  than  straight, 
and  for  two  reasons:  First,  to  satisfy  their  new  friends 
that  they  have  heartily  renounced  their  former  error, 
and  secondly,  to  convince  their  former  friends  that 
they  had  good  reason  for  desertion." 

The  loyalty  of  Jay  and  Duane  to  their  Church  was 
unquestioned.  Tiie  eminent  Thomas  Jones,  a  promi- 
nent loyalist  and  Church  of  England  man,  in  his  ''His- 
tory of  New  York,"  recently  published,  but  written  at 
the  time  of  the  Revolution,  p.  35,  writes:  "Duane  and 
Jay  were  both  gentlemen  of  eminence  in  the  law,  had 
each  a  sufficiency  of  ambition,  with  a  proper  sense  of 
pride,  are  both  strong  Episcopalians,  and  almost 
adored  the  British  Constitution  in  Church  and  State." 

EMINENT  FITNESS  OF  JOHN  JAY  FOR  THE  W^ORK. 

For  the  construction  of  the  new  Ecclesiastical  Con- 
stitution and  the  preparation  of  the  Liturgy  and  Offices, 
we  see  that  Mr.  Jay  was  fitted  beyond  most  men;  from 
his  simple  Scriptural  piety,  his  pre-eminent  experience 
as  a  statesman,  his  Christian  studies,  his  singular  mod- 
eration, and  his  almost  unequalled  gift  as  a  writer. 
Of  his  memorable  paper  presented  to  Congress  in  1774, 
on  "The  Rights  of  the  Colonies  in  General,"  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son said:  "It  is  a  production  certainly  of  the  finest 
pen  in  America." 

In  the  Conventions  of  1785  and  1786,  the  Constitu- 
tion and  Prayer  Book  were  prepared.  At  the  three 
Conventions  either  Mr.  Jay  or  Duane  were  present, 
with  Bishop  Provoost.  All  were  loyal  Americans  and 
liberal  Churchmen,  and  concerted  together  to  preserve 
the  infant  Communion  free  from  the  influence  of  the 
unsound  and  dangerous  ecclesiastical  principles,  which 


/i 


f*  I 


60 


NOTES. 


were  prominently  represented  by  Bishop  Seabury,  who 
had  been  consecrated  by  the  Scotch  Non-Jurors  in  1784. 
As  we  shall   show,  these  men  were  opposed  to  a 
union  with  Bishop  Seabury,  and  purposely  impressed 
principles  upon  the    Constitution  and    Prayer  Book, 
to  which  they  were  fully  aware  he  was  violently  op- 
posed.   If  these  had  been  suffered  to  remain,  the  en- 
tangling and  disastrous  alliance  would  never  have  been 
consummated,  and  the  Church  would  doubtless  have 
been  saved  from  its  departure  from  its  original  princi- 
ples; *'Formed,"  as  it  was,  in  the  words  of  this  wise. 
Christian  patriot,  ''after  the  Revolution,  with  an  eye 
to  what  was  then  believed  to  be  the  truth  and  sim- 
plicity of  the  Gospel."    Life  of  Jay,  vol.  I.,  p.  442. 

When  the  General  Convention  assembled  in  Philadel- 
phia in  1785,  it  was  in  pursuance  of  an  invitation  from 
a  somewhat  informal  meeting  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
September,  1784,  at  which  the  leading  spirits  were  of 
the  Clergy,  Rev.  Messrs.  White,  Piovoost,  Wharton, 
Smith,  and  Griffith;  and  of  the  Laity,  Messrs.  Duane, 
Willett,  Alsop,  Willing,  Peters  and  Powell.  All  of  the 
Clergy  here  enumerated  attended  in  1785.  Of  the  Laity, 
Willett,  Alsop  and  Willing  were  absent.  Their  places 
were  amply  filled  by  other  men  of  distinction,  as 
Shippen,  Hartley,  Page  and  Pinckney. 

DANGERS  TO  BE  AVOIDED. 

In  framing  the  Constitution,  there  was  especial  need 
to  guard  against  the  claim  of  exclusive  Divine  right  on 
the  part  of  the  Episcoi)ate,  priestly  functions  on  the 
part  of  the  presbyters,  and  the  denial  of  the  co-ordi- 
nate rights  of  the  laity. 

These  claims  had  been  asserted  in  the  State  of  Con- 
necticut, where  the  clergy  in  secret  council,  without 
lay  co-operation,  which  was  carefully  ignored,  had 
chosen  one  for  Bishop  who  had  been  consecrated  under 
peculiar  circumstances,  such  as  had  created  alarm 
among  the  patriotic  Episcopalians  of  New  York,  Vir- 
ginia, and  South  Carolina. 

It  will  be  seen  that  men  like  Provoost,  Duane,  Page 
and  Pinckney,  who  had  suffered  in  establishing  the  Re- 
public, took  good  care  that  the  rights  of  the  laity 
should  be  protected,  and  that  the  claims  and  preroga- 
tives of  the  Bishops,  an  order  through  whose  agency, 
the  Puritans  had  been  compelled  to  leave  their  native 


NOTES. 


61 


country;  who  had  legislated  as  spiritual  lords  in  Eng- 
land,  and  through  whose  influence  the  non-conformist 
clergy  had  been  brutally  ejected;  should  be  relegated  to 
their  position  in  the  Primitive  Church,  simply  that  of 
Presiding  Presbyteis,  chosen  by  the  voice  of  the  people. 

THE  POSITION  OF  BISHOPS. 

Therefore,  in  framing  the  Constitution,  these  intel- 
ligent Christian  legislators  inserted  as  the  third  Article, 
the  following:  '^n  every  State  where  there  shall  be  a 
bishop  duly  consecrated  and  settled,  and  who  shall  have 
acceeded  to  this  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  he 
shall  be  considered  as  a  member  of  the  Convention  ex 
officio. 

It  was  the  design  to  prevent  in  the  future  Church  the 
dangerous  aggrandizement  of  power  by  the  Bishops,  in 
constituting  a  separate  House,  and  that  this  was  the 
settled  purpose  of  these  legislators  is  more  clearly  evi- 
dent from  the  action  at  the  next  Convention  in  1786, 
when  on  the  motion  of  Dr.  White,  thi^  section  was 
thus  amended:  ''In  every  State  where  there  shall  be  a 
bishop  duly  consecrated  and  settled,  and  who  shall 
have  acceded  to  the  Articles  of  this  Bcclesiastical  Con- 
stitution, he  shall  be  considered  as  a  member  of  the 
General  Convention  ex  officio;  and  a  bishop  shall  always 
preside  in  the  General  Convention,  if  any  of  the  Epis- 
copal order  be  present.'* 

NO  SEPARATE  HOUSE  OF  BISHOPS. 

It  is  evident  how  carefully  these  clear-headed  patriots 
guarded  against  the  evil  of  allowing  the  bishops  to 
legislate  as  a  separate  order,  and  thus  secure  to  the 
clergy  an  overwhelming  preponderance  of  power. 

The  Convention  had  carefully  protected  the  rights  of 
the  clerical  order  by  adopting  the  r>rinciple  set  forth  in 
the  preliminary  meeting  of  1784,  as  folk)ws:  ''That  the 
Clergy  and  Laity  assembled  in  Convention,  shall  delib- 
erate in  one  body,  but  shall  vote  separately;  and  the 
concurrence  of  Ix^th  shall  be  necessary  to  give  validity 
to  every  measure." 

Thus,  two  j)rincip1efl  were  clearly  established.  That 
there  sliould  not  be  two  peparate  Houpea  to  legislate; 
and  moreover  that  Clergy  and  Laity  should  have  co- 
ordinate powers.    This  was  the  Rational,  Republican, 


62 


NOTES. 


and  Primitive  System  adopted  by  the  Revolutionary 
Episcopalians. 

And  that  this  was  deliberately  done,  with  admirable 
forethought,  becomes  more  evident  from  the  action  of 
Duane  and  Jay,  evidently  with  the  concurrence  of 
Bishop  Provoost,  when  these  distinguished  statesmen 
were  both  Wardens  of  Trinity  Church,  and  Bishop 
Provoost  was  Rector. 

MR.  jay's    resolution    FOR    PROTECTION    OF    THE 

LAITY. 

In  the  meeting  of  the  Vestry,  October,  1789,  to  ap- 
point delegates  to  the  General  Convention  of  that  year, 
Mr.  Jay  moved  that  the  Corporation  would  adopt  the 
following  resolution,  viz.:  *'That  the  delegates  now 
chosen  to  represent  this  congregation  at  the  next  Con- 
vention be,  and  they  hereby  are,  instructed  not  to  con- 
sent to,  but  on  the  contrary',  to  oppose  every  proposed 
Constitution  for  the  American  Episcopal  Church,  and 
every  propos^  alteration  in  the  one  of  1786,  that  shall 
not  give  to  the  laity  equal  powers  with  the  clergy  in  the 
making  of  all  acts,  laws,  and  regiilations  binding  on 
the  Church." 

The  patriotic  vestry  of  1784  having  been  removed, 
and  a  new  one  from  the  old  loyalist  element  who  had 
returned  to  the  city,  having  been  chosen,  the  wardens 
were  overborne,  and  the  consideration  of  the  resolution 
postponed.    Berrian's  Hist,  of  Trinity  Church,  p.  176. 

Jay  and  Duane  sought  by  this  vigorous  resolution  to 
forestall  the  efforts  of  the  party  who  desired  to  unite 
with  Bishop  Seabury  and  the  Kew  England  Loyalists, 
who  demanded  as  a  condition  of  union,  that  the  Bishops 
should  legislate  as  a  separate  order,  with  the  veto 
power  on  the  Lower  House,  thus  giving  to  the  clergy 
a  duplicated  power  over  the  laity,  through  the  votes  of 
two  distinct  clerical  orders. 

THE  PATRIOT  CHURCHMEN  DEFEATED. 

How  Seabury  and  his  party  triumphed,  and  how  the 
feudal  system  was  stamped  upon  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  by  the  abandonment  of  the  Constitution 
framed  by  the  eminent  statesmen  of  the  Revolution, 
will  be  narrated  in  its  proper  place. 


NOTES. 


ANOTHER  DANGER. 


03 


These  wise  statesmen  of  1785  sought  to  guard  against 
another  danger.  The  Church  of  England  in  New 
York,  Connecticut  and  Xew  Jersey,  had  been  mostly 
loyal  to  the  Crown. 

To  the  southward  its  members  had  more  generally 
espoused  the  Cause  of  Liberty,  Justice  and  the  Revolu- 
tion. We  have  previously  shown  how  that  if  the 
Cause  of  Liberty  and  Independence  had  rested  with 
Episcopalians  alone,  it  would  have  failed. 

The  Convention  of  1785  determined  to  secure  to  the 
infant  Church  a  patriotic  clergy,  who  would  be  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  new  Republic,  and  would  be  therefore 
fitted  to  be  instructors  of  the  rising  generation,  in  the 
patriotic,  American  principles  of  its  noble  founders. 

SERVICE  FOR   THE  FOURTH  OF  JULY. 

Fresh  from  service  and  suffering  in  the  State,  and  in 
the  field,  they  thus  ordered:  "On  motion,  Resolved, 
That  the  Fourth  of  July  shall  be  observed  by  this  Church 
for  ever,  as  a  day  of  Thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God, 
for  the  inestimable  blessings  of  religious  and  civil  lib- 
erty vouchsafed  to  the  United  States  of  America." 

"The  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  from  the  committee  to  prepare 
a  form  of  prayer  and  thanksgiving  for  the  Fourth  of 
July,  reported  that  they  had  prepared  the  same.  Or- 
dered, That  it  now  be  received  and  read.  Ordered, 
That  the  said  report  be  received  and  read  by  para- 
graphs; which  being  done.  Resolved,  That  the  said 
form  of  prayer  be  used  in  this  Church,  on  the  Fourth  of 
July  forever." 

Thus  was  the  Church  consecrated  to  free,  American 
principles,  by  this  careful,  deliberate  action. 

SOUTH     CAROLINA     AND     PENNSYLVANIA    RESOLU- 
TIONS. 

And  with  respect  to  this  Fourth  of  July  service 
which  is  one  admirably  constructed  and  eminently 
suitable,  we  find  that  the  Convention  of  South  Caro- 
lina of  1786,  reaffirmed  a  resolution  passed  by  the  P.  E. 
Convention  of  Pennsylvania,  viz:  "That  the  Fourth 
of  July  shall  be  observed  by  this  Church  forever  as  a 
day  of  thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God,  for  the  inesti- 
mable blessings  of  religious  and  civil  liberty  vouch- 


64 


NOTES. 


safecltothe  United  States  of  America."  In  Charles- 
ton, religious  services  on  that  day  were  attended  by- 
great  numbers  of  rejoicing  worshipers.  The  large 
churches  of  St.  Philip's  and  St.  Michael's  were 
crowded  with  attendants.  Is  it  wonderful  that  when 
those  patriots,  with  those  of  Virginia  heard  that  at 
the  Convention  of  1789,  through  the  influence  of  the 
Loyalists  of  New  York  and  New  England,  the  Fourth 
of  July  senice  had  been  rejected  and  eliminated,  and 
that  the  Non-Juring  principles  had  triumphed  in  the 
overthrow  of  the  Scripturally  revised  B«x)k  of  (Common 
Prayer,  that  the  Church  at  the  South  received  a  fatal 
blow  from  which  it  has  never  fully  recovered  ? 

OPINION  OF  JOHN  ADAMS. 

» 

These  Southern  patriots  whose  lands  had  suffered  so 
grievously  in  the  war  that  had  achieved  American  In- 
dependence, felt  justly  with  John  Adams,  as  he  wrote 
to  his  wife  on  the  5th  of  July,  1776:    ''The  Fourth  of 
July,  1776,  will  be  a  memorable  epoch  in  the  history  of 
America.    I  am  apt  to  believe  it  will  be  celebrated  by 
succeeding  generations  as  the  great  anniversar>^  festi- 
val.   It  ought  to  be  commemorated  as  the  day  of  de- 
liverance, by  solemn  acts  of  devotion  to  Almisr'itv 
God.    It  ought  to  be  solemnized  with  pomps,  shows, 
games,  sports,  guns,  bells,  bon-fires  and  illuminations, 
from  one  end  of  the  continent  to  the  other,  from  this 
time  forward  forever." 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  did  not  fail  in  its 
duty  of  commemorating  this  grandest  of  political 
events;  it  was  only  when  it  was  handed  over  to  those 
who  had  sought  to  keep  the  nation  in  the  hands  of  its 
t>Tants,  that  the  celebration  which  so  emphatically 
condemned  their  previous  history  was  disallowed,  and 
thereby  the  confidence  of  the  nation  justly  and  irre- 
parably forfeited. 

BISHOP  white's  defense  UNTENABLE. 

The  very  reasoninec  by  which  Bishop  White  would 
palliate  his  unjustifiable  assent  to  the  destruction  of 
this  wise  and  fitting  work  of  his  patriotic  fellow-lal)or- 
ers  of  1785  and  1786,  canies  its  own  condemnation.  He 
writes,  Mem.  p.  105:  ''Greater  stress  is  laid  on  this 
matter,  because  of  the  notorious  fact,  that  the  majority 
of  the  clergy  could  not  have  used  the  sei-vice  witliout 


NOTES. 


65 


subjecting  themselves  to  ridicule  and  censure."  But 
what  did  the  American  people  want  with  religious 
teachers  who  did  not  accept  heartily  the  principles  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  ?  Were  they  fitted  to 
be  instructors  of  the  rising  generation  ?  Would  not 
the  infant  Church  have  been  bettor  served  by  fewer 
ministri-s,  but  who  were  in  sympathy  with  the  masses 
of  the  victorious  and  triumphant  nation,  fresh  from 
the  sufferings  endured  in  the  great  struggle?  But, 
as  we  have  before  remarked,  this  insane  passion  for 
uniformity,  and  for  an  aggregation  of  utterly  uncon- 
genial elements  was  then,  as  it  has  been  since,  the 
bane  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  action 
of  tl:e  Convention  of  1789  utterly  destroyed  all  prospect 
of  that  Church  becoming,  what  it  might  have  been, 
and  was  entitled  to  be,  among  the  largest,  most  ac- 
ceptable and  most  influential  of  American  Churches. 
As  a  legitimate  and  necessary  result  it  has  sunk  immer- 
ically  to  the  third  class  and  ranks  as  seventh. 

Bishop  Provoost  writes  in  1786;  "The  thanksgiving 
for  the  Fourth  of  July  in  all  probability,  is  one  princi- 
pal cause  of  the  opposition  to  the  alterations  in  the 
Book." 

Most  unfortunately  the  opposition  of  Sejibuiy  and 
his  friends  prevailed.  "  Peace  at  any  price,"  was  to  be 
secured,  even  by  a  discreditable  and  disastrous  change 
of  base. 

The  public  enemies  of  the  Kevolution  were  admitted 
to  a  predominating  influence,  and  with  their  admission 
the  Constitution  and  Liturgy  of  Jay,  Duane,  Page, 
Pinckney,  GrilTin  and  Peters,  was  sacrificed  on  the 
altar  of  a  false  and  hollow  union. 

THE  RADICAL  CHANGE  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

We  have  seen  how  carefully  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  of  1785,  avoided  the  evils  which  had 
attended  the  Church  in  its  past  experience,  from  the 
principle  of  Divine  Right,  in  a  third  Order  of  Ministers, 
to  whom  had  l)een  committed  the  exclusive  power  of 
Ordination,  Confirmation,  and  Jurisdiction.  They 
gave  to  the  Laity  a  co-ordinate  power  of  Legisla- 
tion, and  reducing  the  Episcopate  to  its  original  Scrip- 
tural arrangement,  an  order  identical  with  the 
Presbyterate,  they  constituted  the  General  Convention 


66 


NOTES. 


NOTES. 


(>7 


witli  but  one  House  for  the  transaction  of  Ecclesiastial 
work. 

At  the  next  Convention  of  1786,  tliey  affirmed  the 
Primitive  principle,  that  the  Bishop  should  be  ''primus 
inter  pares,'' and  ordered  that  ''a  Bishop  shall  always 
preside  in  the  General  Convention,  if  anyof  the  Episco- 
pal order  be  present."  Thus  the  Constitution  remained 
until  the  year  1780.  Drs.  Provoost  and  White  in  the 
mean  time  had  been  consecrated  Bishops. 

HOW  THE  CHANGE  WAS  EFFECTED. 

But,  as  we  have  seen,  there  was  another  Bishop  who 
had  been  consecrated  under  very  different  circum- 
stances. Elected  secretly  by  ten  Presbyters,  without  the 
knowledge  or  concurrence  of  the  Laity,  refused 
consecration  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England, 
Dr.  Seaburyhad  been  consecrated  by  the  Non-juring 
Bishops  of  Scotland,  whose  views  of  doctrine  and 
discipline  were  not  in  accord  with  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  and  Prayer  Book  of  1785. 

The  Preface  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  178*5  states  plainly 
that  the  principles  of  the  Divines  who  were  loyal  to 
William  III.  and  the  amendments  proposed  by  those 
eminent  Reformers,  had  been  incorporated  in  the 
primary,  American,  Episcopal  Liturgy. 

Recognizing  no  Church  not  Episcopal,  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  and  the  Kew  England  clergy,  were  entirely  cut 
off  from  fraternal  ecclesiastical  relations  with  any 
ecclesiastical  body,  unless  a  union  was  formed  with 
that  represented  by  Bishops  Provoost  and  White. 

This  union  was  earnestly  desired.  But  the  under- 
standing upon  which  Bishop  Seabury  received  conse- 
cration, was  that  Laymen  were  not  to  legislate  for  the 
Church,  and  moreover  that  the  distinct  assent  of  Bishops 
as  a  superior  order  by  Divine  right  was  essential  to  the 
validity  of  Ecclesiastical  proceed  u  re. 

The  Constitution  and  Prayer  Book  of  178,5  were 
framed  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  glorious 
Revolution  of  William  III.  which  were  in  consonance 
with  those  of  the  American  Revolution. 

But  the  principles  of  Bishop  Seabury  and  his  friends 
were  avowedly  the  same  as  those  of  the  Bishops  of 
James  II.  and  these  same  divines  had  been  outspoken 
opponents  of  the  patriots  who  had  secured  liberty  to  the 
American  Colonies.    They  had  written,  and  preached. 


and  prayed,  and  labored,  in  the  cause  of  the  invading 
armies. 

BISHOP  W^HITE  YIELDS  THE  MAIN  PRINCIPLE. 

Lamentable  and  strange  is  the  fact  that  Bishop 
White  yielded  the  main  pcints  in  the  controversy; 
allowed  the  Constitution  and  Prayer  Book  of  1785  to  be 
overthrown;  and  although  Laymen  were  admitted  to 
legislate  in  Conventions,  yet  the  readmission  of  the 
priestly  principle  of  the  ministry, and  the  adoption  of  a 
separate  House  of  Bishops,  with  an  absolute  negative 
on  the  acts  of  the  lower  House,  destroyed  the  Siifeguards 
erected  by  tlie  Revolutionary  Fathers,  and  prepared  tlie 
way  for  errors  and  disasters  which  have  naturally 
followed  such  a  weak,  unwise,  inconsistent,  and  inde- 
fensible surrender  of  the  principles  adopted  ami 
athrmed  by  the  great  and  good  men  who  founded  the 
American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

In  1789  this  radical  and  revolutionary  change  was 
made  in  the  constitution  framed  in  1785. 

Article  III.  of  the  Constitution  of  1789  reads  thus : 

"The  Bishops  of  this  Church,  when  there  shall  be 
three  or  more,  shall,  whenever  General  Conventions  are 
held,  form  a  separate  House,  with  a  right  to  originate 
and  propose  acts,  for  the  concurrence  of  the  House  of 
Deputies,  composed  of  Clergy  and  Laity;  and  when  any 
proposed  act  shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Deputies, 
the  same  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Bishops, 
who  shall  have  a  negative  thereupon,  unless  ad- 
hered to  by  four  fifths  of  the  other  House;  and  all 
acts  of  the  Convention  shall  be  authenticated  by  both 
Houses." 

THE  CONVENTION  OF  1808. 

In  the  later  General  Convention  of  1808,  the  words: 
''unless  adhered  to  by  four%fifths  of  the  lower  House" 
was  struck  out,  and  thus  an  absolute  veto  was  given  to 
the  House  of  Bishops  upon  the  proceedings  of  the 
entire  body  of  Presbyters  and  Laymen  of  the  lower 
House.  The  feudal  system  was  thus  permanently 
engrafted  upon  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The 
sad  results  which  have  attended  its  later  history  are  the 
simple,  logical  outcome  upon  such  retrogressive  and 
humiliating  legislation. 

It  is  very   remarkable    that  when   this  complete 


XOTEvS. 


surrender  to  the  principle  of  exclusive  Episcopal 
Divine  right  was  made;  Bishops  White  and  Claggett 
alone  composed  the  upper  House,  and  thus  it  was  in 
the  power  of  Bishop  White  to  have  prevented  this  utter 
overthrow  of  a  vital,  cardinal  principleof  the  Constitu- 
tion of  17&5,  which  he  had  assisted  in  drafting. 

In  the  Convention  of  1789,  Bishops  White  and  Sea- 
bury  were  the  sole  members  of  the  Houisof  Bishops, 
when  the  first  serious  abandonment  of  the  essential 
principles  of  the  primary  Constitution  occurred,  and 
thus  again,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  is  Bishop  White  to  be 
held  responsible  for  the  disastrous  changes  which  were 
then  effected. 

THE  DECLINE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

So  greatly  had  the  Church  declined  after  the  un- 
happy legislation  of  1789,  that  in  the  Convention  of 
1808,  when  the  fundamental  change  was  effected 
which  threw  the  Church  into  the  power  of  the  Bishops, 
there  w^ere  present  but  fourteen  clergymen  and  thirteen 
laymen,  with  scarce  a  man  of  eminence  among  them ; 
in  sad  contrast  to  that  remarkable  ami  moie  numerous 
body  of  Christian  patriots  and  divinCv^,  who  framed 
that  admirable  Constitution,  and  that  Protestant 
Prayer  Book,  upon  which  the  Keformed  Episcopal 
Church  has,  under  Divine  Providence,  happily  re- 
erected  and  restored  the  Church  of  the  Fathers. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BISHOPS  SEABURY  AND  IIOBART. 

Dr.  Hobart,  afterwards  consecrated  Bishop  in  1811, 
was  the  most  able,  influential,  and  energetic  member 
of  that  small  Convention,  which  surrendered  the 
principle  of  co-ordinate  lay  legislation  to  the  feudal 
principle  of  exclusive  Divine  right  of  the  Episcopal 
Order.  This  sound  and  salutary  safeguard  of  the 
rights  of  the  people,  aflirm^  and  re-affirmed  in  three 
Conventions  by  Dr.  White  as  a  Presbyter,  in  co-opera- 
tion with  the  Christian  statesmen  of  the  Revolution, 
was  abandoned  by  Bishop  White  under  the  influence  of 
the  stronger  will  and  more  vigorous  and  energetic  na- 
ture of  Seabury  and  Hobart,  both  honest  and  uncom- 
promising High  Churchmen.  These  two  prelates  suc- 
ceeded in  overthrowing  the  work  of  the  Revolutionary 
pioneers  of  the  Church,  constituted  essentially  a  new 
Church,  and  thus  compelled,  in  less  than  a  century. 


/ 


NOTES. 

a  return  to  the  original  principles  of  their  Communion, 
of  those  Episcopalians  who  desired  to  worship  God, 
with  a  pure  Scriptural  Liturgy,  and  by  a  discipline  in 
consonance  with  the  Church  in  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles. The  Reformed  Episcopal  Cliurch  is  not  a  new 
sect,  but  the  old  Church  revived.  Its  history  is 
closely  analogous  to  that  of  the  parent  Church  of 
England,  which  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  pi-e- 
served  its  Episcopal  Order,  and  simply  returned  to  the 
primitive  doctrines  held,  when  Christianity  was  first 
planted  in  the  Apostolic  era,  in  Great  Britain. 

KE VISIONS  OF  THE  PRAYER  BOOK,  PROTESTANT  AND 

OTHERWISE. 

There  have  been  eight  prominent  revisions  of  tlie 
Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  four  in  the  interest  of  Tradi- 
tion, Ritualism,  and  Low  Popery  or  Semi-Romanism  ; 
four  based  on  Holy  Scripture,  Spiritual  Christianity, 
and  Protestantism. 

The  first  four :  the  Revision  of  Elizabeth,  1559 ;  of 
James  1, 1604 ;  of  Charles  II,  1662;  of  Bishop  Seabury, 
1789  ;  which  last  is  the  present  Book  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church. 

Tlie  other  four:  the  Revision  of  Edward  VI,  1552 ; 
of  William  III,  1689 ;  of  Bishop  White  and  the  Revolu- 
tionary statesmen,  1785 ;  of  Bishop  Cummins,  1874; 
which  is  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church. 

This  last  Revision  has  had  a  longer  life  than  all  the 
other  Protestant  revisions  combined.  The  Reform  has 
been  radical,  consistent,  and  complete,  and  the  Book 
has  come  to  stay. 

THE    REVISIONS    OF    1874    AND    1785    IDENTICAL    IN 

PRINCIPLE. 

We  propose  to  show  briefly  that  the  Book  of  1874  is 
identical  in  principle  with  that  of  1785,  and  is  irrecon- 
ciliable  with  that  of  1789,  which  contains  the  false  doc- 
trines of  the  Revision  of  1662. 

THE  OMISSION  OF  THE  TERM  ''PRIEST." 

First:  like  the  Book  of  1785,  that  of  1874  has  elimi- 
nated entirely  from  its  pages  the  word  priest  as  applied 
to  a  human  minister ;  in  the  Prayer  Books  of  1552  and 
of  1559,  the  clergy  are  designated  by  the  term  minister. 


n 


NOTES. 


The  term  "priest"  was  substituted  for  minister  in 
the  revision  of  Charles  II,  1662. 

It  was  removed  by  our  Revolutionary  Fathers  in  the 
Book  of  1785.  It  is  not  introduced  in  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Book  of  1874. 

Through  the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury  it  was  re- 
inserted in  the  Book  of  1789,  and  fifteen  years  later  an 
Institution  Service  was  added,  containing  the  terms 
"Altar,"  "Sacerdotal  function,"  Sacerdotal  connex- 
ion," "Sacerdotal  relation."  Thus  the  so-called 
''''Protestant  Episcopal  Prayer  Book"  has  been  made 
the  most  priestly,  sacerdotal,  and  sacramental  Liturgy 
framed  since  the  Reformation.  Tlie  Ritualism  which 
has  abounded,  is  the  simple,  natural,  logical  outcome 
of  the  phraseology  contained  in  tlie  Book.  Its  advo- 
cates hold  the  fort  and  can  not  be  dislodged. 

SIMILARITY  OF  BAPTISMAL  SERVICES. 

Secondly:  The  Baptismal  Services  of  the  Books  of 
1785  and  of  1874  are  in  iireconciliable  antag- 
onism to  those  of  1662  and  1789.  In  the  Book  of 
1785,  as  in  that  of  1874,  the  declaration  "Seeing  now, 
dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child  is  regenerated, 
&c.,"  is  entirely  omitted. 

In  the  Book  of  17^5,  after  the  Baptism,  instead  of 
the  words  of  the  Book  of  1789,  "We  yield  Thee  hearty 
thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  has  pleased  Thee 
to  regenerate  this  infant  with  the  Holy  Spmt,  &c.,"  we 
have  this  prayer:  "We  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks,  most 
merciful  Father,  that  it  has  pleased  Thee  to  receive 
this  infant  as  Thine  own  child  by  Baptism,  and  to  in- 
corporate him  into  Thy  Holy  Church. 

In  the  Book  of  1874,  the  language  is:  "We  yield  Thee 
humble  thanks,  O  Heavenly  Father,  that  Thou  hast 
inclined  us  to  dedicate  this  child  to  Thee  in  Baptism ; 
and  we  humbly  pray  that  Thy  grace  may  enable  us  to 
bring  him  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord,  i&c." 

In  the  Book  of  17^5,  the  Catechism  and  Confirmation 
Service  were  likewise  essentially  modified,  and  made  to 
conform  in  doctrine  to  the  other  Scriptural  alterations. 

We  give  the  main  i)oints  of  difference  between  the 
Books  of  1785  and  1874,  which  abjure  the  doctrine  of 
Baptismal  Regeneration ;  and  those  of  1789  and  1682, 
which  affirm  that  error  unmistakably  and  designedly. 


/ 


NOTES. 


TI 


The  two  former  Books  have  affirmed  the  Protestant 
and  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Baptism :  the  two  latter 
have  retained  the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Liturgies.  This  is  another  cause  of  the  extensive 
growth  of  anti-Protestant  error  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church. 

AS  TO  THE  lord's  SUPPER. 

Thirdly:  With  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Tliere 
is  an  important  doctrinal  difference  between  the  Books 
of  1785  and  1874,  together  with  that  of  1662;  as  com- 
pared with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Book  of  1789. 

In  the  three  former  are  omitted  what  is  styled  the 
form  of  Oblation  of  the  elements  of  Bread  and  Wine, 
which  is  contained  in  the  Scottish  Communion  Service. 

Bishop  Seabury,  as  we  shall  show  more  fully  here- 
after, held  to  the  doctrine  that  the  Offering  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  was  made 
especially  at  the  time  He  instituted  the  Lord's  Suj>- 
per,  rather  than  on  the  Cross,  and  therefore  he  in- 
sisted that  the  language  of  the  Scotch  Communion 
Service,  which  may  be  thus  interpreted,  should  be  in- 
troduced into  the  Prayer  Book  of  1789.  This  "Invo- 
cation" and  "Oblation,"  were  purposely  omitted  in  the 
Books  of  1785  and  1874.  As  they  are  not  contained  in 
the  English  Book  of  1662,  the  American  Protestant 
Episcopal  Prayer  Book  favors  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  more  strongly  than  the  former.  So 
essential  did  Bishop  Seabury  regard  these  words  in  the- 
office  for  Holy  Communion,  that,  according  to  Bishop 
White,  he  refused  to  lead  in  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  at  the  General  Convention,  when  they 
were  not  used.  Not  only  is  the  "Oblation,"  and  the 
"Invocation"  by  the  "Priest"  omitted  in  the  Book  of 
1874,  but  there  is  appended  this  important  Rubric:  "In. 
conducting  this  service,  except  when  kneeling,  the 
minister  shall  face  the  people." 

Moreover,  another  Rubric  similar  to  that  of  the  Book 
of  1662  is  added  :  "  The  Act  and  Prayer  of  Consecration 
do  not  change  the  nature  of  the  elements,  but  merely 
set  them  apart  for  a  holy  use ;  and  the  reception  of 
them  in  a  kneeling  posture  is  not  an  act  of  adoration  of 
the  elements." 

The  Commmiion  Service  of  the  Book  of  1789  is  not 
thus  guarded. 


72 


NOTES. 


The  IX.  Article  of  the  R.  E.  Constitution  reads: 
"Nothing  calculated  to  teach— either  directly  or 
^mbolically-that  the  Christian  Ministry  possesses  a 
Sacerdotal  character,  or  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
Sacrifice,  shall  ever  be  allowed  in  the  Worship  of  this 
Church;  nor  shall  any  Communion  Table  be  con- 
structed in  the  form  of  an  altar." 

In  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Book  every  avenue  to 
Romanism  has  been  carefully  closed. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  ORDINAL. 

Fourthly :  In  the  Fornis  of  Ordination.  Here  is  a 
marked  and  radical  difference  between  the  Books  of 
1789  and  1874. 

There  being  no  Bishops  to  confer  orders,  the  prepara- 
tion of  such  forms  was  deferred  by  the  members  of 
the  Conventions  of  1785  and  1786.  The  doctrine  was 
then  established  that  there  were  no  human  Priests, 
nor  a  third  order  of  ministers  by  Divine  right. 

In  the  Prayer  Book  of  1789,  the  Primitive,  Protestant 
and  Scriptural  principles  were  abandoned,  and  Con- 
secration and  Ordination  Offices  prepared  according  to 
the  Non-juring  doctrines  of  Bishop  Seabury,  which 
were  similar  to  those  of  Archbishop  Laud. 

The  Offices  for  the  Consecration  of  Bishoj^s  and  Ordi- 
•diyiation  of  Priests  in  the  Book  of  1789,  were  framed 
on  the  model  of  the  Book  of  1662.  This  later  Revision 
diffei-ed  from  the  Reformers'  Book  of  1552,  in  that  it 
made  Episcopal  Consecration  and  Ordination  essential 
to  the  ministry,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
CJhurch  of  England.  Though  Bishop  White  and  his 
co-laborei-s  of  1785  did  not  hold  this  doctrine,  it  was 
inserted  to  reconcile  Bishop  Seabury  and  the  Clergy 
of  exclusive  and  Sacerdotal  views.  The  term  ''  Priest " 
was  borrowed  from  the  Book  of  1662,  a  term  which 
had  been  carefully  excluded  from  the  Revision  of  1552, 
and  from  all  later  Revisions  for  over  a  century. 

This  same  term  of  Priest,  together  with  the  notion  of 

exclusive.  Episcopal,  Divine  right,  as  we  have  seen, 

was  expunged  by  the  Revolutionary  Revisers  of  1785, 

-as  it  was  by  Bishop  Cuuimins,  and  the  framers  of  the 

Book  of  1874. 

In  the  Ordinal  lor  Priests  in  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Prayer  Book,  the  form  is  this:  ^-Receive  the  Holy 
<ihost  for  the  Office  and  Work  of  a  Priest  in   the 


NOTES. 


7$ 


Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the 
Imposition  of  our  hands.  Whose  sins  thou  dost  for- 
give, they  are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins  thou  dast 
retain,  they  are  retained.  And  be  thou  a  faithful  Dis- 
penser of  the  Word  of  God  and  of  His  Holy  Sacra- 
ments, etc." 

THE  PROTESTANT   EPISCOPAL  FORM   DERIVED  FROM 

THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 

If  this  language  means  anything,  it  is  that  the  abso- 
lution of  sins  is  the  primal  work  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Priest,  and  those  who  act  on  this  principle^ 
are  acting  according  to  the  Record.  Inasmuch  as  this- 
form  was  not  in  use  till  the  Middle  Ages,  in  the  thir- 
teentli  century,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  the  doctrines^ 
of  that  supei-stitious  period,  connected  with  a  human 
priesthood,  a  material  altar,  and  a  memorial  sacrifice, 
have  largely  le^ivenedthe  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

In  the  Prayer  Book  of  1874,  the  form  of  Ordination 
reads:  ^-Take  thou  Autiiority  to  execute  the  office 
o:  a  Presbyter  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed 
uuLo  thee;  and  be  thou  a  faithful  Dispenser  of  the 
Word  of  God  and  of  His  Holy  Ordinances,  etc." 

In  the  Book  of  1789  are  clearly  contained  the  doc- 
trines of  an  exclusive  Episcopal  Ordination;  of  Priestly 
functions;  of  tactual  Succession;  and  of  transmitted 
grace.  In  the  Bo<jk  of  1874,  these  errors  are  expressly 
and  rei)ealedly  denied. 

DECLAItATION  OF  PRINCIPLES. 

In  her  Statement  of  Principles,  the  Reformed  Epis- 
copal Church  declares:  "This  Church  recognizes  and 
adheres  to  Episcopacy,  not  as  of  Divine  right,  but  as  a 
very  ancient  and  desirable  form  of  Church  polity." 

Slie  •'  condemns  and  rejects  the  following  erroneous 
and  strange  doctrines  as  contrary  to  God's  AVord : 

''Firat,  That  the  Church  of  Christ  exists  only  in  one 
oi-der  or  form  of  Ecclesiastical  polity  ; 

*'  Second,  That  Christian  ministers  are  'priests'  in: 
another  than  that  in  which  all  believers  are  a  'royal 
priesthood;' 

*^  Third,  That  the  Lord's  Table  is  an  altar  on  which 
the  oblation  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  offered 
anew  to  the  Father ; 

*'  Fourth,  That  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's*. 


74 


NOTES. 


Supper  is  a  presence  in  the  elements  of  the  Bread  and 
Wine; 

"  Fifth,  That  Regeneration  is  .inseparably  connected 
-with  Baptism." 

THE  TWENTY-FOURTH  ARTICLE. 

And  still  further  to  emphasize  her  rejection  of  these 
Mediaeval  errors  which  have  so  sadly  corrupted  the 
■Church,  she  declares  in  her  XXIV.  Article :  '-  That 
doctrine  of  'Apostolic  Succession,'  by  which  it  is 
taught  that  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  Church  must 
be  derived  through  a  series  of  uninterrupted  ordina- 
tions, whether  by  tactual  succession  or  otherwise,  and 
that  without  the  same  there  can  be  no  valid  ministry, 
no  Christian  Church,  and  no  due  ministration  of 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  wholly  rejected  as 
Tinscriptural,  and  productive  of  great  mischief. 

This  Church  values  its  historic  ministry,  but  recog- 
nizes and  honors  as  equally  valid,  the  ministry  of  other 
Churches,  even  as  God  the  Holy  Ghost  has  accompanied 
their  work  with  demonstration  and  power." 

Moreover,  by  the  R.  E.  Canons  it  is  ordered,  that  a 
Presbyter  from  another  Church  may  be  received  with- 
out reordination;  pulpit  exchanges  with  ministers  of 
Evangelical  Churches  are  allowed;  lettere  dismissory 
are  given  to  Bishops  and  Presbyters  desiring  to  change 
their  ecclesiastical  relations;  and  parishes  may  be 
formed  without  the  consent  of  neighboring  pastors  and 
congregations. 

In  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  on  the  other 
hand,  reordination  is  required  of  all  adhering  non- 
Episcopal  ministers,  while  Roman  Priests  are  admitted 
without  it;  the  pulpit  is  barred  to  all  without  Episcopal 
orders;  all  who  leave  its  ministry  for  other  Churches 
are  deposed;  and  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  neighbor- 
ing rectors  is  required,  before  a  new  parish  can  be 
formed. 

So  thoroughly  antagonistic  are  the  two  Churches  in 
their  principles  and  practices. 

THE  MISSION  OF  THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

Thus  has  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  been  loyal 
to  the  Truth  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  to  the  doctrine  and 
practice  of  the  Primitive  Church. 

Thus  does  sh3  stand  on  the  foundation  of  the  martyiii 


NOTES. 


75 


of  Edward  VI. ;  of  the  Reformers  under  William  III. ; 
of  the  Revolutionary  Foundei*sof  American  Episcopacy. 
In  Divine  Providence,  to  this  Church  has  been  com- 
mitted the  noble  and  necessary  work  of  restoring  in 
this  age,  the  principles  from  which  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  1789,  radically  diverged;  a  divergence 
which  for  near  a  century  has  grown  wider  and  wider ; 
and  has  compelled  at  last  the  sacrifices  and  toils,  by 
which,  through  the  manly  courage  and  enlightened 
faith  of  Bishop  Cummins  and  his  co-laborers,  the  grand 
and  holy  work  has  been  successfully  and  permanently 
inaugurated. 

CAUSE6  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  TO  BISHOP  SEABURY. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  overthrow  of  the  Primary 
Constitution  and  Prayer  Book  of  the  Divines  and 
Statesmen  of  the  Revolution,  framed  in  1785  and  1786, 
was  due  mainly  to  Bishop  Seabury,  of  Connecticut. 

The  strong  opposition  to  this  Prelate  manifested  by 
Bishop  Provoost,  John  Jay,  James  Duane,  and  others 
at  that  period,  has  been  alluded  to. 

We  propose  to  give  the  reasons  why  these  eminent 
Episcopalians  of  the  Revolutionary  period  endeavored 
to  prevent  an  ecclesiastical  union  with  this  energetic, 
non-juring  Bishop. 

BISHOP  PROVOOST  ASSAILED  FOR  HIS  OPPOSITION. 

This  opposition  was  very  plainly  expressed.  Bishop 
Provoost  has  been  severely  handled  in  the  * 'Church 
Review,"  and  by  various  writers,  for  the  part  betook  in 
the  matter.  Referring  to  a  correspondence  of  the  dis- 
tinguished Granville  Sharp  with  Dr.  Manning,  an 
eminent  Baptist,  and  Bishop  Provoost,  with  respect  to 
the  non-recognition  of  Bishop  Seabury's  Consecration, 
this  "Review"  remarks :  "  It  was  the  old  scene  at  Jeru- 
salem re-enacted,  Herod  and  Pilate — the  determined 
dissenter  and  the  jealous  Churchman— were*  made 
friends  in  their  common  antipathy  to  one  both  innocent 
and  unsuspecting."  Bishop  Provoost  is  charged  with 
being  "  unkind,"  "  discourteous,"  "bitter,"  "  implac- 
able," ''malicious,"  "atroubler  in  Israel,"  " low  in 
morals  and  belief,"  on  account  of  his  manly,  conscien- 
tious effort  to  preserve  the  infant,  Protestant  Episco- 
piil  Church  from  the  dangerous,  semi-Romish,  and 
anti-Republican  principles  of    the  able    and  adroit 


70 


NOTES. 


leader  of  the  Tory  clergy  of  the  Revolution.    See  Am. 
Quar.  Church  Review  for  July,  1862,  April  1863.    The^ 
Internatwnal  Review,  April,  1881,  p.  324,  states :  "Bishop 
W.  S.  Perry,  of  Iowa,  the  laborious,  and  probably  in 
the  view  of  some  of  his  Communion,  the  disagreeably 
candid  historian  of  the  Colonial  Church,  has  put  into- 
prmt  a  pamphlet  containing  such  a  severe  judgment  of 
the  first  Bishop  of  New  York  as  to  leave  his  readers  to 
mfer  that  Provoost's '  consecration '  did  not  reach  to 
his  character."  Beardsley's  History  of  the  P.  E.  Church 
in  Connecticut,  contains  the  usual  High  Church  de« 
preciation  of  this  accomplished  and  patriotic  friend  and 
pastor   of   Jay,  Duane,  the  Livingstons,  Hamilton, 
Ruf  us  Kmg,  and  other  great  statesmen  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. 

VINDICATION  OF  BISHOP  PROVOOST. 

The  succeeding  history  of  the  P.  E.  Church  furnishes 
ample  justification  for  the  warnings,  and  precautionary 
measures  cf  Bishop  Provoost. 

Of  his  exalted  character  and  services,  in  addition  to 
the  full  and  varied  testimony  we  have  previously  pre- 
sented, there  is  ample  vindication  in  the  resolutions 
passed  by  the  Convention  of  his  Dioces-  in  this  lan- 
guage :  "  Justly  reposmg  the  highest  confidence  in  jour 
mtegrity  and  piety,  your  love  of  peace  and  order,  and 
your  unremitted  endeavors  for  the  advancement  of 
true  religion  and  virtue,  we  rejoice  that  the  dictin- 

guishedhonorcf  filling  oneofthefirst  Episcopal  Chairs  in 
these  United  States  hath  been  conferred  on  a  character  £o 
truly  amiable,  and  we  trust  that  we,  and  t!iose  whom 
we  represent,  shall  never  fail  to  render  you  all  due 
support,  respect  and  reverence  *  *  *  an  example  for 
our  imitation,  and  an  ornament  to  our  holy  relif^ion  " 
See  Berrian's  Hist,  of  Trinity  Church,  p.  £07. 

Well  would  it  be  for  the  defamers  of  this  departed 
Christian  Bishop  if  they  might  hand  down  to  their 
posterify  such  a  testimonial  from  sucli  a  constituency. 

As  Bishop  Provoost  opposed  the  election  of  Tr. 
Hobart  to  the  Episcopate  en  much  the  sr.me  grounds  as 
he  did  union  with  Bishop  Seabury,  much  of  the  abuse 
he  has  received  can  be  readily  accounted  for. 

PLAIN  LANGUAGE  OF  BISHOP  PKOVOOST. 

Bishop  Provoost  saw  the  impending  peril,  and  labored 
earnestly  to  prevent  the  catastrophe.    He  writes  to 


NOTES.  77 

Bishop  White,  after  the  Convention  of  1785,  with  ref- 
erence  to  the  applications  for  Episcopal  Consecration : 
"  I  expect  no  obstruction  to  our  application  but  what 
may  arise  from  the  intrigues  of  the  Non-juring  Bishop 
of  Connecticut,  who  a  few  days  since  paid  a  visit  to 
t  his  State,  notwithstanding  he  incurred  the  guilt  of 
misprision  of  treason,  and  washable  to  confinement  for 
life  for  doing  so  *  *  *.  While  he  was  there,  a  piece  ap- 
peared in  a  paper  under  Rivington's  direction,  pretend- 
ing to  give  an  account  of  the  late  Convention,  but 
replete  with  falsehood  and  prevarication,  and  evidently 
intended  to  create  a  prejudice  against  our  transactions 
both  in  England  and  America."    Later  he  writes :  "  If 
we  may  judge  from  appearances,  Dr.  Cebra  and  his 
friends  are  using  every  art  to  prevent  the  success  of 
our  application  to  the  English  prelates."    The  next 
year  Bishop  Provoost  writes:  "As the  General  Con- 
vention did   not  think   proper  to  acknowlalge   Dr. 
Cebra  as  a  Bishop,  much  less  as  a  Bishop  of  our 
Church,  it  would  be  highly  improper  for  us,  in  our 
private  capacities,  to  give  any  sanction  to  his  Ordi- 
nations.   It  would  a!so  be  an  insult  upon  the  Church 
and  the  truly  venerable  prelates  to  whom  we  are  now 
making  application  for  the  Succession.    For  my  own 
part,  I  carry  the  matter  still  further,  and  as  a  friend  to 
the  liberties  of  mankind,  should  be  extremely  sorry 
that  the  conduct  of  my  brethren  here  should  tend  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  sect  of  Non-Jurors  (nearly  buried  in 
oblivion),  whose  slavish  and  absurd  tenets  w^ere  a  dis- 
grace to  humanity,  and  God  grant  that  they  may  never 
be  cherished  in  America,  w^hich,as  my  native  Country, 
I  wish  may  always  be  sacred  to  Liberty,  both  civil  and 
religious."     February   24th,   1789,   Bishop   Provoost 
writes  thus  plainly  to  Bishop  Seabuiy :  "An  invitation 
to  the  Church  in  that  State  (Connecticut)  to  meet  us  in 
General  Convention,  I  conceive  to  be  neither  necessary 
nor  proper;  not  necessary  because  I  am  informed  that 
they  have  alrea(:y  appointed  two  persons  to  attend  the 
next  General  Convention  without  our  invitation;  nor 
proper  because  it  is  so  publicly  known  that  they  have 
adopted  a  form  cf  Church  government  which  renders 
them   inadmissib'e  as  members  of  the  Convention  or 
union."    "  Cebra  "  i^  stated  to  be  one  of  the  forms  of 
the  family  name.    A  resolution  offered  by  Bishoi)  Pi'O- 
voost  in  the  Convention  of  1785,  and  passed,  was  as 


n 


NOTES. 


follows :  ^'  That  the  persons  appointed  to  represent  this 
Church  be  instructed  not  to  consent  to  any  acts  that 
may  imply  the  validity  of  Dr.  Seabury's  ordinations." 

ACTIVE  OPPOSITION  OF  JAY  AND  DUANE. 

The  opposition  of  John  Jay  and  James  Duane  to  the 
views  of  Bishop  Seabury,  and  to  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion with  him,  was  equally  determined  and  well  known. 
When  the  General  Convention  of  1789  was  about  to 
meet,  while  Jay  and  Duane  were  wardens  of  Trinity 
Church,  IS'ew  York,  the  former  introduced,  at  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Yestry,  a  resolution  instructing  the  deputies 
to  General  Convention  to  oppose  every  alteration  in  the 
Constitution  of  1785,  which  denied  to  the  laity  a  co- 
ordinate power  of  legislation  with  the  clergy. 

When  the  General  Convention  had  surrendered  to 
Bishop  Seabury  and  his  friends,  and  a  motion  was  made 
to  agree  to  the  new  feudal  Constitution,  Jay  and 
Duane  voted  to  reject  it,  together  with  Mr.  Farquhar, 

another  distinguished  patriot,  and  Anthony  L.Bleecker. 

The  Yestry  being  now  mainly  composed  of  the 
returned  opponents  of  the  Revolution,  the  resolution 
was  carried,  and  these  wise  and  eminent  patriots  failed 
in  their  efforts  to  save  the  Church  of  their  ancestors. 

John  Jay  was  an  intelligent  and  consistent  opponent 
of  the  principles  of  Bishop  Seabury  and  of  Bishop 
Ilobart  to  the  day  of  his  death.  Thirty  years  after  his 
earnest  efforts  to  preserve  his  Church  from  the  blun- 
dering and  pernicious  legislation  by  which  its  hold  upon 
the  confidence  and  support  of  the  American  people  was 
so  sadly  and  needlessly  lost,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  of  which  he  had  been 
the  most  illustrious  member  in  an  era  of  great  men. 

JAY  ON  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 

He  is  presenting  his  reason  why  the  Institution  Ser- 
vice would  not  be  allowed  in  the  parish.  After  show- 
ing its  "unconstitutional  assumptions  of  power,  an 
insuperable  objection,"  he  proceeds  to  condemn  the 
term  ''ministers  of  Apostolic  Succession,"  as  therein 
contained.  Pie  remarks:  "If  it  be  asked,  whether 
the  ministers  of  the  Calvinistic  and  other  Churches  are 
of  Apostolic  Succession,  it  is  answered  by  all  our 
bishops  and  clergy  that  they  are  not.  It  follows, 
therefore,  of  necessary  consequence,  that  our  bishoi)S 


f 


NOTES. 


<  J 


and  clergy  and  their  congregation,  when  they  offer  up 
their  prayer  to  Almighty  God,  must  offer  it  with  the 
meaning  and  understanding  that  the  gracious  promise 
mentioned  in  it  is  confined  to  Episcopalian  ministers, 
-and  therefore  excludes  the  ministers  of  all  other  de- 
nominations of  Christians." 

It  is  a  marked  coincidence,  that  this  extreme  Sacer- 
dotal Institution  Service  was  framed  by  a  divine  who 
had  received  his  principles  and  his  orders,  like  Bishop 
Seabury,  from  the  Non-juring  Bishops  of  Scotland. 
Thus  another  sad  legacy  has  descended  from  the  same 
fountain  of  ecclesiastical  bigotry  and  error  to  corrupt 
and  distract  the  Church. 

Referring  to  the  divine  blessings  which  had  for  cen- 
turies been  distributed  so  copiously  to  Churches  not 
Episcopalian,  Mr.  Jay  most  sagely  writes:  "It  may 
not  be  unworthy  of  remark,  that  as  a  prophecy  is  best 
understood  from  its  completion,  so  the  manner  in 
which  a  Divine  promise  is  performed,  affords  the  best 
^exhibition  of  its  true  and  original  meaning."  He  al- 
ludes to  our  Saviour's  words:  "Lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world ;"  which  are  re- 
stricted in  their  meaning  by  Roman  Catholics  and 
many  Episcopalians,  to  their  respective  denominations. 

We  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  from  the  conclud- 
ing words  of  this  memorable  letter  of  this  pre-eminent 
Christian  statesman,  whose  views  were  identical  with 
those  taught  by  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 
They  are  like  a  legacy  from  one  of  the  old  prophets. 

A  MEMORABLE  INDICTMENT  OF   HIGH  CHURCH  EPIS- 
COPACY. 

"For  a  considerable  time  past  we  have  observed  a 
variety  of  circumstances  connected  with  Church 
affairs  which,  on  being  combined  and  compared  one 
with  the  other,  justify  inferences  which,  in  our  opin- 
ion, are  exceedingly  interesting,  not  only  to  the  rights 
of  the  laity,  but  also  to  our  churches  in  general,  and 
to  yours  in  particular.  We  allude  to  the  gradual  in- 
troduction and  industrious  propagation  of  High 
Church  doctrines.  Of  late  years,  they  have  frequently 
been  seen  lifting  up  their  heads  and  appearing  in 
places  where  their  presence  was  neither  necessary  nor 
expected.  There  never  was  a  time  when  those  doc- 
trines promoted  peace  on  earth  or  good  will  among 


80 


NOTES. 


men.  Originating  under  the  auspices  and  in  the  days 
of  darkness  and  despotism,  they  patronized  darkness 
and  despotism,  down  to  the  Reformation.  Ever  en- 
croaching  on  the  rights  of  governments  and  i)e<)ple, 
they  have  constantly  found  it  convenient  to  incorpor- 
ate as  far  as  possible,  the  claims  of  the  clergy  with  the 
principles  and  practice  of  religion  ;  and  their  advociites 
have  not  ceased  to  preach  for  (.'hristian  doctrines,  tlie 
commandments  of  men. 

"To  you  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  observe,  that  High 
Church  doctrines  are  not  accommodated  to  the  state  of 
society,  nor  to  the  tolerant  principles,  nor  to  the  ardent 
love  of  liberty  which  prevail  in  our  country.  It  is 
well  known  that  our  Church  was  formed  after  the 
Revolution,  with  an  eye  to  what  was  then  believed  to 
be  the  truth  and  simplicity  of  the  Gospel ;  and  there 
appears  to  be  some  reason  to  regret  that  the  motives 

which  then  governed  have  since  been  less  operative 
»  *  *  * 

"Whatever  may  be  the  result,  we  shall  have 
the  satisfaction  of  reflecting  that  we  have  done 
our  duty,  in  thus  explicitly  protesting  against  meas- 
ures and  proceedings  which, if  persevered  in,  must  and 
will,  sooner  or  later,  materially  affect  the  tranquility 
and  welfare  of  the  Church."  Jay's  Life,  vol.  1,  p. 
439-42. 

Mr.  Jay  believed  in  Episcopacy  in  the  primitive 
simplicity  and  purity  which  he  had  vainly  sought  to 
impress  permanently  upon  his  Church  in  its  early 
American  history. 

He  writes,  p.  435:  "We  believe  that  Episcopacy  w^as  of 
Apostolic  institution,  but  we  do  not  believe  in  the  va- 
rious High  Church  doctrines  and  prerogatives  which 
art  and  ambition,  triumphing  over  credulity  and  weak- 
ness, have  annexed  to  it.*' 

BIR.  JAY  AN  ANTAGONIST  OF  BISHOP   IIOBART. 

With  such  principles  we  are  not  surprised  that 
Mr.  Jay  vigorously  opposed  the  views  and  measures 
of  Bishop  Seabury,  as  he  did  for  thirty  yeiii-s  those  of 
Bishop  Hobart,  who  held  to  equally  extreme  and  dan- 
gerous notions  of  Episcopal  power  and  prerojralive. 

Tims,  when  Bishop  Hobart  assailed  the  American 
Bible  Society,  inasmuch  as  he  disapproved  of  Episco- 
palians uniting  with  Christians  of  other  names  in  ex- 


NOTES. 


81 


tending  the  Gospel ;  Mr.  Jay,  as  the  foremost  champion 
of  enlightened  and  tolerant  Protestant  Episcopacy,  re- 
peatedly accepted  the  Presidency  of  the  same  Society, 
and  vindicated  it  in  his  addresses  against  the  assaults 
of  its  bigoted  adversaries.  Unfortunately  the  warn- 
ings of  this  Christian  Patriarch  were  unheeded. 

A  SIMILAR   REBUKE    FROM  THE  SON   OF  JOHN    JAY. 

That  his  fears  were  realized,  is  seen  in  the  letter  of 
his  distinguisned  son,  Hon.  William  Jay,  written  to 
the  rector  of  Trinity  Church,  a  generation  later,  in 
1850.  He  says  in  his  published  letter,  p.  12:  "To 
those  who  embrace  the  Church  principles  of  Trinity, 
the  very  term  Protestant  is  an  offense.  *  *  *  *  You 
know  the  lamentations  wliich  have  been  uttered  over 
our  uncatholic  designation.  The  'sound  Church  prin- 
ciples' which  you  tell  us  have  at  'all  tim.es'  been  man- 
fully maintained  by  Trinity,  have  in  latter  years 
brought  forth  their  legitimate  fruit,  now  known  as 
Puseyism.  This  fruit  has  indeed  wrought  sore  mala- 
dies, wild  hallucinations,  and  wondrous  mutations,  in 
those  who  have  partaken  of  it. 

'•It  has  metamorphosed  one  of  our  rectors  into  a 
Popish  Bishop,  and  one  of  our  Bishops  into  a  lay  Pro- 
fessor of  a  Jesuit  college.  It  has  driven  the  son  of 
another  Bishop  from  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  and 
sent  him  an  apostate  on  a  pilgrimage  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  and— but  I  forbear.  It  is  needless  to  dwell  on 
the  distractions,  the  heart-burnings,  the  mummeries, 
the  puerilities,  the  symbolisms,  and  the  awful  aposta- 
cies  resulting  from  the  taste  of  this  baneful  and  intoxi- 
cating fruit." 

THE  church's  RETURN   TO   PRIMITIVE  PURITY   OF 

DOCTRINE. 

The  evil  leaven  introduced  into  the  Prayer  Book  and 
Constitution  of  1789,  blossomed  and  fruited,  until  its 
direful  results  within  a  century,  compelled  the  return 
to  the  original  principles  of  the  Fathers  ;  and  with  the 
blessing  of  God,  was  followed,  through  the  agency  of 
Bishop  Cummins,  by  the  free,  enlightened  Constitu- 
tion, and  the  Protestant,  Scriptural  and  Primitive 
Prayer  Book  of  1874  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church. 


82 


NOTES. 


THE  ERRONEOUS  DOCTRINES  OF   BISHOP  SEABURY. 

We  desire  it  to  be  understood,  that  in  our  examination 
of  the  relation  of  Bishop  Seabury  to  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  we  do  not  desire  to  detract  from  his. 
estimable  traits  of  character,  his  earnestness  of  purpose,. 
or  his  mental  endowments.  These  we  fully  acknowl- 
edge, as  we  do  those  of  his  worthy  Revolutionary 
contemporary.  Archbishop  Can  oil,  a  divine  equally 
esteemed.  At  the  same  time,  we  are  bound  in  the  in- 
terests of  historical  truth,  and  of  soinid  religion,  to 
show  how  the  false  opinions  and  reactionary  measures 
of  this  able.  Non-juring  clergyman,  were  substituted 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Prayer  Book  for  the  antag- 
onistic, Protestant,  and  Scriptural  principles  of  the 
Revolutionary  Statesmen  and  Divines  who  framed  the 
Constitution  and  Liturgy  of  1785. 

BISHOP   SEABURY'8  ERROR   WITH    RESPECT    TO    THE 

lord's  supper. 

From  his  sermon  on  the  Holy  Eucharist,  Vol.  I,  we 
quote :  "  It  being  admitted  that  Christ  did  offer  Him- 
self—His natural  body  and  blood— His  whole  humanity 
to  God,  a  sacrifice  for  the  sin  of  the  world  ;  and  having 
been  shown  that  He  did  not  offer  Himself  on  the  Cross, 
but  was,  in  everything  that  related  to  His  Crucifixion, 
merely  passive;  it  may  be  asked,  when  did  He  offer 
Himself?  I  answer,  in  the  Institution  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  *  *  *.  As  He  could  not  wound  and  kill  His 
own  natural  body,  and  shed  His  own  blood.  He  made 
this  offering  in  a  mystery^  that  is,  under  the  emblems  of 
bread  and  ^v^ne  *  *  *.  The  truth  of  this  position,  that 
Christ,  under  the  emblems  or  symbols  of  bread  and 
wine  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  offered  or  gave  His  natural 
body  and  blood  for  the  sin  of  the  world  will  further 
appear,  etc.  It  now  having  been  proved  that  Christ 
did,  at  the  Institution  of  the  Eucharist,  offer  His 
natural  body  and  blood  to  God,  an  expiatory  sacrifice 
for  sin,  under  the  symbols  and  representation  of  bread 
broken  and  wine  poured  out,  and  consecrated  by  bless-^ 
ing  and  thanksgiving,  etc.  *  *  *.  It  appears,  therefore, 
that  the  Eucharist  is  *  *  *  a  true  and  proper  sacrifice 
commemorative  of  the  original  sacrifice,  and  death  of 
Christ  for  our  deliverance  from  sin  and  death— a 
memorial  made  before    God   to   put    Him  in  mind,. 


NOTES. 


oo 


etc.  *  *  ^.  The  elements  being  thus  made  authorita- 
tive representations  or  symbols  of  Christ's  crucified 
body  and  blood,  are  in  a  proper  capacity  to  be  offered  to 
God  as  the  great  and  acceptable  sacrifice  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Accordingly  the  oblation,  which  is  the 
highest,  most  solemn,  and  proper  act  of  Christian 
worship  is  then  immediately  made."    pp.  150-9. 

The  doctrine,  that  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  our 
Lord  was  made  on  the  occasion  of  the  Institution  of 
the  Holy  Communion,  and  not  on  the  Cross,  is  here  dis- 
tinctly and  repeatedly  asserted. 

These  words,  and  many  more  of  like  meaning,  suf- 
ficiently prove  that  Bishop  Seabury 's  views  were  in 
direct  antagonism  to  those  of  the  English  Reformers, 
and  plainly  contain  the  germ  of  Popery. 

They  prove  also,  that  Bishop  Provoost  and  others  were 
justified  in  their  stern  opposition  to  the  influence  of 
such  anti-Protestant  teaching. 

BISHOP     SEABURY 'S     VIEW      OF     THE    EFFECTS     OF 

BAPTISM. 

"  The  power  of  God's  grace  has  been  supposed  always 
to  accompany  the  due  celebration  of  His  ordinances. 
Baptism  has  ever  been  regarded,  not  only  as  the  sign 
and  seal  of  regeneration,  but  as  the  means  by  which 
the  regenerating  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost  have  been 
conveyed,  and  therefore  it  is  called  the  washing  of 
regeneration  *  *  *.  This  baptism  our  Saviour  trans- 
ferred into  His  Church,  and  made  it  the  sacrament  of 
initiation  into  it,  and  the  medium  of  that  new  and 
spiritual  birth,  without  which  no  one  can  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God,  any  more  than  he  can  enter  into 
this  world  any  other  w^ay  than  by  his  natural  biilh 
*  *  *.  If  the  blessing  of  Christ  did  procure  for  those 
infants  the  grace  and  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  where  is  the 
absurdity  of  believing  that  baptism  by  Christ's  appoint- 
ment, and  performed  by  His  authorized  minister,  should 
procure  the  grace  of  regeneration  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
for  those  infants  who  come  to  it  by  the  faith  of  their 
parents?"  Vol.  I.  21.  Ill,  121. 

BISHOP  SEABURY 'S  VIEWS  OF  THE  MINISTRY. 

**St.  Paul's  says:  'We  Christians  have  an  altar, 
whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat  which  serve  the 
tabernacle.'    Now,  where  there  is  an  altar,  there  must 


b. 


NOTES. 


be  a  sacrifice,  and  a  priest  to  offer  it.  And  as  Ctirist's 
Apostles  were  at  its  institution,  authorized  by  Him  to 
oliei  tiie  Christian  sacritice  of  bread  and  wine,  no  doubt 
cdii  remain  ot  their  being  the  priests  of  the  Christian 
Cnurch  in  the  most  proper  sense  *  *  *.  TJie  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments  has  been  proved  to  belong 
exclusively  to  the  minister  of  Christ  in  virtue  of  His 
commission  to  them.  They  are  therefore  dispensers  of 
those  gifts  and  graces  of  the  Holy  ISpuit  which  accom- 
pany those  ordinances.  The  power  of  administration 
depending  so  directly  upon  the  commission  of  Christ  to 
His  Apostles,  he  who  holds  no  part  of  it  by  an  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  ordinations  can  have  no  pretense 
to  meddle  with  them  *  *  *.  The  JScnptures  having 
pointed  out  no  other  way  of  communicating  this  au- 
thority, but  by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  of  tne  CliurLh 
—they,  I  mean,  who  have  succeeded  the  original 
Apostles  in  the  power  of  ordmation  and  government— 
by  them  only  can  this  authority  be  now  imparted  *  *  *, 
Since  the  Holy  Apostles  did,  in  obedience  to  Christ, 
and  under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  transmit  to 
others  the  powers  they  received  fiom  Him,  constitut- 
ing bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons,  as  three  orders  of 
ministers  in  His  Church;  it  is  the  duty  of  ail  Christians 
to  submit  to  that  government  which  they,  the  Apostles, 
have  instituted,  and  not  to  run  alter  the  new-iangled 
scheme  of  parochial  episcopacy,  of  which  the  bible 
knows  nothing,  and  of  which  the  Christian  Church 
knew  nothing  till  a  little  more  than  two  centuries 
ago."    Sermons  1.  21,  C:i,  88. 

Sufficient  has  been  quoted  to  show  how  widely  Bishop 
Seabury  dilfered  in  his  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
Baptism,  and  the  Ministry  from  the  teachings  of  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1785,  and  why  Bishop  Provoost,  Jay, 
and  other  earnest  Protestants,  depreciated  the  balelul 
influence  of  such  doctrines  upon  their  infant  Com- 
munion. 

The  doctrines  of  this  eccentric  divine  with  respect  to 
the  Ckurck  are  correspondingly  narrow,  unreasonable, 
and  unscriptural. 

A  FURTHER  OBJECTION. 

Moreover,  the  extremely  offensive  language  of  Bishop 
Seabury,  with  respect  to  Christians  of  other  folds, 
created  a  natural  and  intense  opposition  to  him.  With 


NOTES. 


85 


respect  to  the  Methodists,  he  writen  to  Dr.  Smith, 
"  the  plea  of  the  Methodists  is  something  like  impu- 
dence. Mr.  Wesley  is  only  a  presbyter,  and  all  his 
ordinations  Presbyterian,  and  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  Church  of  England.  And  they  can  have  no 
pretense  for  calling  themselves  Churchmen  till  they 
return  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church,  which  they  have 
unreasonably,  unnecessarily,  and  wickedly  broken, 
by  their  separation  and  schism."  Bishop  White's 
Mem.  p.  287. 

SEABURY  ON  CALVINISTS. 

Calvin  and  the  Presbyterians  were  especially  obnox,. 
ious  to  him.  He  writes :  '*  Calvin  w^as  undoubtedly  a 
man  of  abilities,  and  his  whole  conduct  shows  that  he 
was  a  man  of  an  assuming,  intrepid,  and  vindictive 
temper.  He  busied  himself  in  everything  which  con- 
cerned the  Reformation,  and  with  everybody  who  had 
any  influence  in  it.  At  last  he  fixed  himself  at  the 
head  of  the  Protestants  and  became  their  Pope.  Little 
was  done,  little  was  taught  but  as  Calvin  liked  and 
advised  *  *  *,  Talk  with  a  Calvinist  on  religion,  and 
begin  where  you  will,  you  will  soon  get  into  election 
and  reprobation  and  irresistible  grace.  You  would 
think  religion  consisted  of  nothing  else  *  *  *,  Predesti- 
nation is  to  the  mind  what  the  jaundice  is  to  the  body. 
The  whole  Bible  appears  tinctured  with  a  sickly, 
yellow  hue,  when  the  predestinarian  looks  into  it, 
•especially  if  he  be  of  a  morose  and  vindictive  temper,  as 
most  commonly  is  the  case."    Sermons,  vol.  II.  234-98. 

SEABURY  ON  WHITFIELD. 

When  the  apostolic  Whitfield,  who  crossed  the 
ocean  to  this  Continent  seven  times  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, came  to  his  vicinity,  Dr.  Seabury  was  greatly 
troubled.  He  writes:  ''We  have  had  a  long  visit  from 
Mr.  Wliitfield  in  this  Colony  where  he  has  preached 
frequently,  especially  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  in 
this  island,  and  I  am  sorry  to  say  he  has  had  more 
influence  than  formerly,  and  I  fear  has  done  a  great 
<leal  of  mischief.  His  tenets  and  methods  of  preach- 
ing have  been  adopted  by  many  of  the  dissenting 
teachers,  and  this  town  (Jamaica)  in  particular  has  a 
continual,  I  had  almost  said  a  daily,  succession  of  stroll- 
ing  preachers    and   exhorters."    Again    he    writes: 


^ 


NOTES. 


"Without  Bishops  the  Church  can  not  flourish  in- 
America,  and  unless  the  Church  be  well  supported  and 
prevail,  this  whole  Continent  wUl  be  overrun  with  in- 
fidelity  and  deism,  Methodism  and  Xew  Light,  with 
every  species  of  skepticism  and  enthusiasm,  and  witli- 
outa  Bishop  on  the  spot  I  fear  it  will  be  impossible  to- 
keep  the  Church  herself  pure  and  undefiled/'  Doc 
Hist.  N.  Y.,  IV.  327-30. 

The  ten  Tory  clergymen  who  secretly  sent  Dr.  Sea- 
bury  across  the  water  for  consecration,  appear  to  have- 
been  as  strongly  impressed  with  the  impending  danger 
to  religion,  for  they  appeal  for  Seabury's  consecration 
on  this  ground:  "that  the  Church  of  God  might  not 
become  extinct  here."  On  this  language,  the  Interna- 
tional  Review  for  July,  18S1 ,  p.  327  in  an  article  on  Bishop 
Seabury,  remarks:  "The  vitality  and  all  the  effective 
benedictive  agency  of  the  Christian  religion  on  charac- 
ter, conduct  and  human  life,  and  the  institutions  of  a 
Continent,  are  made  dependent  upon  a  subtile  and 
unique  virtue  running  through  an  unbroken  line  of 
men,  like  electricity  on  a  continuous  wire,  conveying 
authority  from  one  to  another  by  a  touch." 

This  is  a  strikingly  correct  definition  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Succession  chimera,  so  widely  prevalent  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Communion. 

BISHOP   SEABURY   OX  THE    POSITION  OF  THE   LAITY. 

But  there  was  no  view  of  Bishop  Seabury  more  repel- 
lant  to  the  men  who  had  fought  through  the  Revolu- 
tion, and  framed  the  Prayer  Book  of  178.5  on  the  princi- 
ples of  William  III  and  his  noble  Bishops,  than  that  re- 
specting the  position  of  the  laity  in  the  Church.  It 
was  truly,  in  the  language  of  Bishop  Provoost,  an 
"absurd  and  slavish  tenet." 

He  starts  with  the  theory  that  laymen  have  no  Scrip- 
tural right  to  partake  of  the  Holy  Communion.  He 
sfeems  not  to  have  been  familiar  with  St.  Pa uPs  first  let- 
ters  to  the  Corinthians,  where  not  only  is  the  right  of 
the  laity  to  this  ordinance  established,  but  inasmuch 
as  that  Church  appears  to  have  had  no  pastor  at  that 
period,  the  right  of  a  layman  to  administer  the  rite  in 
an  emergency,  can  be  reasonably  inferred.  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  says,  vol.  I,  p.  146:  "No  Church  that  I  know  of 
excludes  the  laity  from  the  Conmiunion;  though  (the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Church  excepted,)  they  have 


NOTES. 


87- 


no  direct  authority  for  their  admission.  All  that  can 
be  alleged  from  Scripture,  in  favor  of  lay  communion, 
may  be  explained  away  in  the  same  manner  in  which 
the  Presbyterians  explain  away  Episcopal  government,. 

&c." 

NO  AUTHORITY  FROM  THE  PEOPLE. 

On  p.  40,  he  remarks:  "With  respect  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  I  must  as  a  faithful  minister  of 
Christ,  and  a  governor  in  His  Church,  bear  my  testi- 
mony against  the  position  th?it  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual 
powers  are  in  any  sense  derived  from  the  people,  or  from 
any  human  authority.''^ 

The  Bishop  appears  to  have  forgotten  that  several  of 
the  most  noted  Bishops  of  antiquity  were  appointed  l)y 
the  people,  without  the  co-operation  of  the  clergy,  and 
in  some  cases,  apparently  without  receiving  consecnv- 
tion.  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  Martin,  Eustatius, 
Eracliusand  Miletus,  are  noted  instances.  See  CoU 
man,  Christ.  Antiq.  p.  67. 

Among  other  extravagant  opinions  of  this  prelate 
was  that  the  appointment  of  pastors  be  confirmed  by 
the  Bishop;  that  it  was  his  prerogative  to  prepare 
the  Liturgy  for  his  Diocese;  that  when  our  Saviour 
used  the  expression,  "Hear  the  Church,"  he  had  refer- 
ence to  the  governors  of  the  Church— See  pp.  47,  75.  In- 
deed, the  word  "Church"  seemed  to  be  in  Seabury's 
mind  almost  identical  with  "the  clergy." 

LAYMEN  UNAUTHORIZED  TO  LEGISLATE. 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  he  was  totally  opposed  to  the 
admission  of  the  laity  to  Convention,  with  the  privi- 
lege of  legislating,  and  much  less  to  their  possession  of 
co-ordinate  power.  On  this  point  he  was  in  direct  an- 
tagonism to  the  Kevolutionary  statesmen.  Yet  Sea- 
bury,  by  the  weak  compliance  of  Bishop  White,  Dr. 
Smith,  and  others,  obtained  a  complete  triumph  over 
all  opposition.  Dr.  Hawks  in  his  comment  on  Article 
III,  Const.  P.  E.  Church,  says:  "In  the  General  Con^ 
vention  of  September,  1789,  Bishop  Seabury  with  the 
churches  under  his  care  came  into  the  union,  but  not 
until  a  change  had  been  made  in  this  Article.  They 
made  it  a  condition  that  this  article  should  be  so  modi- 
fied 'as  to  declare  explicitly  the  rights  of  the  Bishops 
when  sitting  in  a  separate  house  to  originate  and  pro- 


;i 


•88 


NOTES. 


pose  acts  for  the  concmrence  of  the  other  hoiir.e  of 
IJonveiition;  and  to  negative  such  acts  proposed  by  the 
other  house  as  they  may  disapprove.'  This  modifica- 
tion was  agreed  to,  and  thus  to  Bishop  Seabury  belongs 
the  merit  of  having  made  the  Bishops  an  equal  and  co- 
ordinate power  in  the  work  of  our  general  and  ecclesi- 
astical legislation." 

«. 

THE   PREDOMINATING   INFLUENCE  OF  THE   CLERGY 

CONFIRMED. 

Thus,  instead  of  giving  a  co-ordinate  power  to  the 
laity  as  representing  the  great  body  of  the  Church,  the 
legislative  power  of  the  clergy  was  more  than  duplica- 
ted.   A  vote  by  orders  was  allowed  the  clergy  in  the 
lower  house  at  all  times,  and  if  the  clergy  were  de- 
feated, the  question  must  then  run  the  gauntlet  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  and  by  a  simple  majority  in  that 
body    of    overpowering     influence,   the     unanimous 
voice  of  the  laity,  together  with  that  of  the  clergy, 
might  be  smothered,  the  House  of  Bishops  at  the  same 
time  sitting  with  closed  doors.    In  this  disastrous  and 
indefensible  erection  of  a  legislative  body  analogous  to 
the  English  House  of  Lords,  but  with  greater  legislative 
privilege  and  power,  having  a  mysterious,  undefined, 
exclusive    prerogative,   and    having    a    life    tenure, 
none  of  the  great  Revolutionary  statesmen  had  a  hand. 
The  work  of  Jay  and  Duane;  Peters  and  Shippen; 
Page   and    Pinckney;  Brearley  and    Griffin;    grand 
Christian  statesmen  and  heroes,  was  overthrown  by  men 
of  smaller  make.    It  has  required  the  disastrous  experi- 
ence of  near  a  century  to  undo  the  work  of  Seabury, 
and  to  enable  Bishop  Cummins  to  re-erect  the  Church 
of  the  Revolution,  of  the  Reformation,  of  the  Apostles, 
on  its  ancient  foundations  of  Scriptural  Truth,  and 
Ecclesiastical  Freedom. 

MINOR  ECCENTRICITIES  OF  BISHOP  SEABURY. 

We  have  but  space  to  enumerate  among  the  further 
eccentricities  of  this  prelate,  his  claim,  as  the  preroga- 
tive of  a  Bishop,  to  confer  the  degree  of  D.  D.:  his  oc- 
casional practice  of  wearing  a  mitre  as  a  badge  of 
office,  and  of  signing  his  name  as  Samuel,  Connecticut, 
Ac,  in  imitation  of  the  feudal  custom  of  the  English 
prelates  of  the  House  of  Lords.  His  expressed  prefer- 
ence for  the  first  and  half  reformed   Book  of  Edward 


NOTES. 


8^ 


VI,  to  the  later  Revision  of  1552,  of  the  Reformers;  m 
which  he  has  now  many  Protestant  Episcopal  imita- 
tors; coupled  with  other  mediaeval  Non-juring  senti- 
ments, created  a  wide  and  just  suspicion  as  to  his  want 
of  sympathy  with  the  established  Evangelical  doctrines, 
of  the  English  Reformation.  Sermons  I,  p.  58;  II,  47. 

THE  OPPONENTS   OF  BISHOP    SEABURY  FULLY 

VINDICATED. 

As  men  faithful  to  the  truth  of  Scripture,  to  the  Re- 
formed Religion,  and  to  Religious  and  Civil  Freedom,. 
Bishop  Provoost  and  John  Jay,  with  other  enlightened 
and  liberty-loving  Episcopalians,  were  compelled  to 
earnestly  oppose  his  connection  with  their  Church,  as 
one  of  its  Bishops.  They  felt  assured  that  his  eccen* 
tricities  and  extravagances  of  doctrine,  in  addition  to 
other  valid  objections,  would  be  pernicious  and  de- 
structive to  the  infant  Church,  in  leading  minds  into 
erroneous  and  unsafe  views,  and  in  raising  obstacles  to 
its  growth  of  an  insuperable  character.  The  present 
state  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  with  respect 
to  sympathy  with  media3val  doctrine  and  its  allowance 
of  Semi-Romish  rites;  the  predominating  infiuence  and 
authority  of  the  name  and  opinions  of  Bishop  Seabury, 
the  centennial  of  whose  consecration  is  now  being  com- 
memorated with  much  eclat  throughout  that  Commu- 
nion; furnishes  an  ample  vindication  of  their  wisdom, 
and  faithfulness  to  the  Truth,  to  the  mind  of 
every  unprejudiced,  independent,  patriotic,  American 
Christian. 

^'Distance  may  lend  enchantment  to  the  view."  We 
truet.  however,  that  these  facts  and  authorities^  which 
in  the  interest  of  Truth  we  have  here  presented,  may 
serve  to  open  the  eyes,  and  clear  the  vision  of  some 
who  are  dazzled  by  the  glare  of  this  Ljnis  Fatuus  of  an 
imaginary,  mysterious,  undefined,  exclusive  Divine 
rig! it,  in  a  fancied  third  order  of  Bishops  in  the  Christ- 
ian Ministry ;  may  free  some  souls  from  their  uncon- 
scious subjection  to  the  Traditions  and  Command- 
ments of  men,  and  may  lead  them  into  the  enjoyment 
of  the  whole  Truth. 

POLITICAL  OBJECTIONS  TO  BISHOP  SEABURY. 

In  addition  to  the  objections  made  to  Bishop  Seabury 
on  account  of  his  unsound  and  extravagant  doctrines. 


•90 


NOTES. 


und  eccentric  ideas,  there  was  a  hostile  feeling  exten- 
sively felt  towards  him  on  account  of  his  active  parti- 
^nship  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  in  opposition 
to  the  measures  of  Congress.  There  were  English 
rectors  and  missionaries  who  held  to  the  doctrine  of 
passive  obedience,  who  yet  quietly  and  devotedly  ful- 
filled the  duties  of  their  calling  during  this  stormy 
period,  and  were  greatly  respected.  Such  were  Dr. 
Bass,  in  Massachusetts,  and  Dr.  Beach  in  New  Jersey. 
In  Connecticut,  New  York,  and  New  Jersey  there  was 
scarcely  an  Episcopal  clergyman,  and  comparatively 
few  laymen,  of  that  Communion,  who  sided  with  the 
Colonists.  This  is  evident  from  the  letter  of  Dr.  Charles 
Inglis,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  on  the 
State  of  the  Church,  written  October,  1776. 

He  says :  "  I  have  the  pleasure  to  assure  you  that  all  the 
Society's  Missionaries,  without  excepting  one,  in  New 
Jersey,  New  York,  Connecticut,  and  as  far  as  I  can 
learn,  in  the  other  New  England  Colonies,  have  proved 
themselves  faithful,  loyal  subjects  in  these  trying  times; 
and  have  to  the  utmost  of  their  power  opposed  the 
spirit  of  disaffection  and  rebellion,  which  has  involved 
this  Continent  in  the  greatest  calamities.  I  must  add 
that  all  the  other  clergy  of  our  Church  in  the  above 
Colonies,  though  not  in  the  Society's  service,  have  ob- 
served the  same  line  of  conduct." 

THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CLERGY  SUSTAIN  CONGRESS. 

On  the  other  hand  he  says  of  "  the  Presbyterian  min- 
isters :"  "  I  do  not  know  one  of  them,  nor  have  I  been 
able,  after  strict  inquiry,  to  hear  of  any  who  did  not  by 
preaching  and  every  effort  in  their  power,  promote  all 
the  measures  of  Congress,  however  extravagant." 
*'  The  present  rebellion  is  certainly  one  of  the  most 
causeless,  unprovoked  and  unnatural  that  ever  dis- 
graced any  country ;  a  rebellion  marked  with  peculiarly 
-aggravatea  circumstances  of  guilt  and  ingratitude 
*  *  *  very  few  of  the  laity  (members  of  our  Church) 
who  were  respectable,  or  men  of  property,  have  joined 
the  rebellion."  The  general  state  of  the  Episcopal 
mind  is  evident  from  this  document,  and  the  part 
taken  at  the  North,  by  that  Denomination  with  respect 
to  the  Revolution.  See  Doc.  His.  N.  York,  IV.  1049-66. 

Dr.  Inglis  states  that  the  clergy  not  being  allowed  to 
pray  for  the  King,  refused  to  hold  public  service,  and 


NOTES. 


n 


shut  up  their  churches.  This  was  universal  in  Con- 
necticut, New  Jersey  and  New  York,  except  when 
protected  by  English  bayonets ;  and  in  Pennsylvania, 
except  in  Philadelphia,  and  in  one  or  two  missions. 
All  who  wished  to  worship  God  in  public  were  conse- 
quently compelled  to  attend  the  Non-Episcopal 
Churches. 

When  the  American  Army  entered  New  York,  Dr. 
Inglis  writes :  "  I  shut  up  the  churches." 

After  the  disastrous  Battle  of  Long  Island,  when 
New  York  was  abandoned,  and  the  Dutch  Re- 
formed Churches  filled  by  the  Tories  with  American 
prisoners,  who  were  treated  with  savage  barbarity,  Dr. 
Inglis  WTites:  "I  opened  one  of  the  churches,  and 
solemnized  Divine  Service,  when  all  the  inhabitants 
gladly  attended,  and  joy  was  lighted  up  in  every 
countenance  on  the  restoration  of  our  public  worship ; 
for  very  few  remained  but  such  as  were  members  of 
our  Church." 

SEABURY  A  GUIDE  TO  GENERAL  CLINTON. 

Dr.  Seabury  was  now  in  New  York  acting  as  Chap- 
lain to  the  British  forces.  He  preached  a  sermon  to 
stimulate  the  army  against  the  rebels,  which  was 
printed  by  the  Governor,  and  widely  scattered  in  both 
countries.  In  April,  1775,  with  others,  he  had  signed 
a  protest  in  which  he  declared  his  "  honest  abhorrence 
of  all  unlawful  Congresses  and  Committees,"  and  de- 
termination "  at  the  hazard  of  our  lives  and  properties 
to  support  the  King  and  Constitution." 

In  Hamilton's  Life  by  his  son,  there  is  presented  an- 
other reason  for  the  popular  odium  against  Dr.  Sea- 
bury.  It  was  the  authorship  of  Tracts  marked  by 
great  ability  and  asperity  against  the  popular  cause. 

"In  a  neighboring  Colony  the  exasperation  rose  so 
high,  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  County,  the  pamphlets 
were  tarred  and  feathered,  and  nailed  to  the  pillory 
amid  the  shouts  of  the  people.  *  *  *  The  efforts  to 
introduce  episcopacy  into  America  were  recurred  to, 
and  the  abject  devotion  displayed  by  some  of  the  cleri- 
cal dependents  of  the  Crown,  and  their  unguarded 
avowal  of  their  sentiments,  increased  the  odium."  It 
was  proposed  by  some  "that  author  and  publisher 
should  be  indicted  for  treasonable  designs."    Vol.  I.  p. 


92 


NOTES. 


28.    The  Tracts  were  the  joint  productions  of  Dr.  Sea- 
bury  aiid  Rev.  Isaac  Wilkins. 

But    what    made    Seabury    the   most    obnoxious 
of    all  the    Episcopal    clergy   was   the    active  part 
he     took     in     assisting     General     Clinton     in    his 
Caiiipaigns.    In  the  Doc.   Hist.  New  York,  IV.  p. 
1063,  we  read:  "Mr.  Seabury  considered  it  his  most 
prudent  course  to  close  his  church,  'as  there  could  be 
neither  prayers  nor  sermon  till  he  could  pray  for  the^ 
King.'    On  the  retreat  of  the  American  Army,  after 
the  Battle  of  Long  Island,  Mr.  S.  withdrew  within  the 
British  lines,  where  (Hawkins  says)  lie  was  very  useful 
to  General  Clinton,  whom  he  furnished  with  plans  and 
maps  of  the  roads  and  rivers  in  the  county  of  West- 
chester, which  could  not  but  be  highly  serviceable.'* 
The  same  statement  may  be  found  in  Reed's  life  of 
General  Reed,  II,  170.    "The  established  Church  and 
its  clergy  were,  it  may  be  concluded,  no  favorites  in 
this  part  of  the  United  States.    They  were  objects  of 
Ul-concealed  enmity,  which  neither  the  unquestioned 
patriotism  of  a  portion  of  the  laity,  nor  Dr.  White's 
republicanism  could  disarm.    Nor  was  it  unnatural, 
for  the  conduct  of  the  clergy  in  New  York  and  New 
Jersey  had  been  most  offensive.    Mr.  Seabury  by  his 
own  showing  was  a  guide  to  Sir  Henry  Clinton  in  1776, 
and  Odell,  a  refugee  from  New  York,  was  a  regular 
contributor  of  clever  ribaldry   to   Kingsto)}'s   Boyal 
Gazette.    He  (Odell)  appears  to  have  been  a  medium  of 
communication  between  Gustavus  (Arnold)  and  John 
Anderson  (Andre)  in  1780." 

SEABURY  THE  SUBJECT  OF  POLITICAL  SATIRE. 

^  We  have  further  evidence  of  the  feeing  with  which 
Seabury  and  other  Tory  rectors  were  regarded,  in 
"Trumbull's  McFincral,"  a  patriotic  satire  largely 
directed  against  the  Episcopal  clergy. 

"Have  not  our  Cooper  and  our  Seabury 
Sunj?  hymn?  like  Barak  and  old  Deborah, 
Proved  all  intris^ues  to  set  you  free. 
Rebellion  'gainst  the  powers  that  be; 
Brought  over  many  a  Scripture  text. 
That  U8ed  to  wink  at  rebel  sects. 
Coaxed  wayward  ones  to  favor  regents, 
And  paraphrased  them  to  obedience." 


NOTES.  9S 

RESULTS  JUSTIFY    THE  OPPOSITION  OF  BISHOP 

PROVOOST. 

The  active  and  persistent  partisanship  of  Bishop 
Seabury  in  behalf  of  King  and  Parliament,  and  the 
"enmity"  felt  towards  him  especially,  for  his  notorious 
antagonism  to  Congress,  certainly  justifies  the  deter- 
mined efforts  which  Provoost,  Jay  and  Duane  made  to 
save  the  infant  Church  from  connection  with  this 
offensive  Loyalist.  They  foresaw  the  disastrous  effects 
which  would  necessarily  result  from  the  predominating 
influence  of  this  energetic  divine,  now  advanced  to  the 
Episcopate.  They  knew  full  w^ell  that  at  the  South, 
where  their  Church  was  the  strongest  in  numbers,  and 
intensely  patriotic,  such  a  union  would  be  generally 
and  indignantly  resisted.    The  sad  result  followed. 

Though  at  the  first  Convention,  after  the  Seabury  acces- 
sion, there  were  eighty  clergymen  in  Virginia  and  the 
Carolinas,  there  w^ere  but  seventy-seven  in  New  Eng- 
land, New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  com- 
bined. In  twenty  years  from  this  time,  there  was  not 
one  Protestant  Episcopal  candidate  for  orders,  the 
Church  at  large  was  in  a  confessed  decline,  while  at  the 
South  it  was  little  more  than  a  name.  Such  were  the 
natural  results  of  the  failure  of  the  wise  and  patriotic 
efforts  of  Provoost,  Jay,  Duane,  and  others  to  preserve 
the  Constitution  and  Prayer  Book  of  1786;  such  the 
legitimate  and  disastrous  consequences  of  the  triumph 
of  Seabury  and  his  friends. 

THE  CIRCUMSTANCES  OF  BISHOP  SEABURY 'S  ELECTION 

OBJECTIONABLE. 

Ten  ministers,  stipendiaries  of  an  English  Society, 
who  had  shut  their  churches  up  during  the  war,  and 
thus  deprived  the  people  of  all  opportunity  of  Liturgical 
worship  in  the  use  of  the  Episcopal  Service,  met  in 
Woodbury,  March  1783,  and  requested  Dr.  Seabury  to 
go  to  England,  and  be  consecrated  a  Bishop,  for  a  land 
with  which  they  had  no  civil  connection,  for  we  do  not 
learn  that  they  had  taken  a  new  oath  of  allegiance;  they 
were  still  British  subjects.  Beardsley  in  Hist,  of  Ch.  of 
Connecticut,  Vol.  I.  p.  346,  says :  "  They  went  into  no 
formal  election  of  a  Bishop  as  takes  place  in  these 
days." 


n 


NOTES. 


A  DEED  DONE  IN  A  CORNER. 


Moreover,  the  deed  was  done  with  the  utmost  secrecy. 
It  *-was  kept  a  profound  secret  even  from  their  most 
intimate  friends  of  the  laity."  p.  347.    None  of  the 
twenty  thousand  laymen  of  Connecticut  knew  that 
these  ten  clergymen,  who  had  been  neglecting  their 
spiritual  interests  for  seven  years  by  depriving  them  of 
Public  Service,  had  officiously  and  unwarrantedly  un- 
dertaken to  select  a  spiritual  govertior  to  rule  over 
them.    The  motive  that  prompted  this  presumptuous 
act  was  ''  that  the  Church  of  God  might  not  have  be- 
come extinct  here."    If  the  ministers  of  the  Congrega- 
tional Church  had  closed  their  churches,  as  these  had 
done,  this  danger  might  certainly  have  existed.    The 
clergy  not  being  allowed  to  pray  publicly  for  an  earthly 
King,  the  people  were  not  by  them  permitted  to  pray 
publicly  to  the  King  of  Kings. 

^^  The  International  Review,  July,  1881,  p.  319,  states: 
"  The  approval  of  some  clergymen  in  New  York,  and 
of  Carlton,  the  British  Governor  and   General,   still 
there,  was  procured  under  the  same  secrecy."     This 
whole  act  of  these  Connecticut  clergy  in  surreptitiously 
procuring  a  Bishop  for  America,  singularly  enough, 
was  British  and  Tory  throughout.    It  had  not,  how- 
ever, the  stamp  of  British  honesty.    Strangly  enough, 
as  the  same  Review  states :  "  Only  about  a  year  after- 
ward, in  May,  1774,  at  a  meeting  of  Episcopal  clergy 
and  laymen  from  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New 
Jersey,  held  at  New  Brunswick,  did  the  secret  of  the 
Connecticut  movement  come  to  the  knowledge  of  their 
brethren."    Nor  is  it  strange  that  Dr.  Smith,  one  of 
these  clergymen,  wrote  to  the  Scottish  Bishops,  that 
Dr.  Seabury  was  chosen  "at  the  instigation  of  a  few 
clergymen  that  remain  ^  *  ^ .  See,  if  you  value  you  own 
peace  and  advantage  as  a  Christian  Society,  that  your 
Bishops  meddle  not  with  this  consecration."    If  the 
Scottish  Bishops  had  heeded  this  advice,  the  Church  in 
America  might  have  been  preserved  from  an  irremedi- 
able disaster.  See  Hawks' «&  Perry's  Reprint  of  Journal 
Gen.  Conventions. 

Seubury  was  utterly  unsuccessful  in  his  application 
to  tlie  English  Bishops  for  consecration.  The  Inter- 
national  Review,  p.  321,  states  that:  "Finding  the 
Prelates  so  divided  in  opinion  about  his  request,  Sea- 


NOTES. 


i)'5 


'l)ury  was  forced  to  continue  the  secrecy  of  his  scheme 
in  England,  lest  the  dissenters  might  be  tempted  to 
ask  our  authorities  in  America  to  oppose  it." 

Secrecy  was  stamped  upon  the  undertaking  from  its 
: first  contrivance,  to  its  final  success.  It  hardly  has  a 
parallel  in  history.  "He  that  doeth  Truth  cometh  to 
the  light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest  that 
they  are  wrought  in  God." 

THE  VALIDITY  OF  SEABURY 'S  ELECTION  DOUBTFUL. 

The  validity  of  Seabury 's  appointment  to  the  Episco- 
pate may  be  very  justly  questioned.  There  was  no 
election  by  the  people  such  as  was  required  in  tlie 
Primitive  Church.  Mosheim,  a  standard  historian, 
states:  "To  them  (the  multitude  or  people)  belonged 
the  appointment  of  the  bishops  or  presbyters,  as  well  as 
of  the  inferior  ministers  *  *  *.  Nothing  whatever,  of 
any  moment,  could  be  determined  or  carried  into  effect 
without  their  knowledge  or  concurrence."  De  Rebus 
Cristianor.,  Bk.  1,  §45.  But  Seabury  was  elected 
without  the  knowledge  or  concurrence  of  an  American 
layman,  and  by  a  few  clergymen  who  were  not  citizens 
of  the  country  for  which  he  was  designated.  His  elec- 
tion being  thus  unauthorized,  and  vitiated  ab  initio, 
could  any  succeeding  consecration  remove  the  bar 
sinister  ?  For  consecration  is  merely  a  public  acknowl- 
edgement or  confirmation  of  an  office  obtained  through 
election.  The  mind  of  the  Spirit  is  known  in  the  vote 
of  a  praying  people.  No  election  of  a  bishop  not  fair 
or  honest,  can  be  held  to  be  valid,  unless  we  believe  that 
heaven  smiles  on  craft  or  cunning.  Too  many  Episcopal 
elections  have  been  vitiated  by  intrigue  and  stratagem. 

We  are  not,  therefore,  suprised  to  learn  that,  "the 
prelates  were  sensitive  also  about  making  a  strolling  or 
mendicant  bishop  without  a  sustaining  See.  A  year's 
patient  and  earnest  effort  in  London,  at  his  own  charges, 
did  not  one  whit  advance  Seabury 's  wishes.  When  one 
prelate  was  to  a  degree  conciliated  another  would  start 
an  objection.  Perhaps  all  of  them  became  a  little 
weary  of  Seabury 's  presence  and  persistency."  Inter. 
Tlev.  p.  322. 

SEABURY 'S  APPLICATION  TO  THE    SCOTCH    CHURCH. 

The  application  to  the  Scotch  Non-Juring  Bishops 
iwas  strikingly  appropriate  to  the  circumstances  under 


96 


NOTES. 


which  Seabur>'  had  been  sent.  "  This  was  a  discreditecT 
and  disfranchised  succession  from  the  prelacy  of  the- 
old  Scotch  Church,  who  at  the  Revolution  would  not 
forswear  themselves  to  the  Stuart  dynasty  by  swearing- 
allegiance  to  their  royal  substitutes.    There  were  at  the- 
time  of  Seabury's  errand  four  bishops  of  this  sort,  witht 
forty-two  clergy  under  them.    They  were  under  the- 
ban,  and  in  ill  odor  in  England,  and  disesteemed  by 
their  brother  prelates.    By  an  Act  of  George  II.,  a 
penalty  of  six  months'  imprisonment  with  final  trans- 
portation was  denounced  upon  any  members  of  the 
Communion,  more  than  five,  who  should  meet  for  wor- 
ship, and  this  could  only  be  in  a  private  dwellings 
They  were  forbidden  to  officiate  at  all  in  England," 
Inter.  Rev.  p.  322. 

Here  certainly  was  a  remarkably  appropriate  resort 
for  one  thus  clandestinely  elected.  Seabury  had  found 
at  last  suitable  consecrators.  He  was  consecrated 
on  condition,  that  the  Connecticut  Clergy  "when  in 
Scotland  should  not  hold  Communion  in  sacred  offices 
with  those  persons,  who,  under  pretense  of  ordination 
by  an  English  or  Irish  bishop,  do  or  shall  take  upon 
themselves  to  officiate  in  any  part  of  the  National 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  whom  the  Scottish  bishops 
cannot  help  looking  upon  as  schismatical  intruders^ 
etc."  This  condition  could  not  have  displeased  Seabury, 
as  he  looked  upon  all  Non-Episcopal  clergymen  as  schis- 
matical intruders  into  the  sacred  office,  and  this  is  also  the 
avowed  opinion  of  his  American  disciples.  The  line  of 
secrecy  was  also  carried  out  with  respect  to  the  conse- 
cration sermon,  which  was  published  without  the  name 
of  the  preacher,  or  of  the  place  where  the  act  was  per- 
formed. 

HIS  CONSECRATION   NOT   RECOGNIZED  IN  ENGLAND. 

We  are  not  surprised  to  learn  *'His  consecration  was 
not  recognized  in  London.  He  was  not  addressed  by 
his  title  of  bishop,  nor  invited  by  any  of  the  clergy  to- 
preach.  To  a  letter  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society  of 
which  he  had  been  for  thirty-one  years  a  devoted  mis- 
sionary, asking  about  the  continuance  of  his  salary,  he 
received  a  letter  addressed  to  the  *Rev.  Dr.  Seabury,^ 
that  he  was  no  longer  one  of  its  missionaries,  its  rule- 
comprehending  only  British  dependencies. "  Inter.  Rev.. 


f 


NOTES. 


yr 


p.  323.    Are  Bishop  Provoost  and  his  friends  to  be  con- 
demned for  extending  similar  treatment  to  this  divine  ? 
We  have  enumerated  these  plain  facts  with  respect 
to  Bishop  Seabury;  his  doctrines,  his  position  and  acts . 
during  the  American  Revolution;  the  manner  of  his  ^ 
election  and  consecration ;  (and  we  have  furnished  the 
proofs  of  all  our  statements),  in  order  to  vindicate  and 
justify  the  action  of  those  who  earnestly  opposed  all 
ecclesiastical  connection  with  him;  who   refused   to- 
recognize  the  validity  of  his  election  and  consecration, 
to  the  Episcopate;  and  who,  on  this  account,  have  been 
widely  vilified  and  abused  by  the  admirei-s  and  foU 
owners  of  this  now  much  magnified  prelate. 

WHY  THE  FACTS  HERE  NARRATED  ARE  NOT  GENER^ 

ALLY  KNOWN. 

The  circumstances  connected  with  the  early  history 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  coimtry  are 
not  widely  known,  for  the  reason  that  the  documents 
are  not  easy  of  access.  Few  have  written  concerning 
these  important  transactions.  Bishop  White,  who  was 
well  qualified  to  describe  them,  has  furnished  but  scant 
materials.  His  own  reputation  for  wisdom  and  con- 
sistency would  not  be  advanced  by  a  minute  narration 
of  the  early  history  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church^ 
The  best  work  of  Bishop  White  was  the  Constitution 
and  Prayer  Book  of  1785  and  86 ;  his  clearest  and  ablest 
production  was  his  Tract  in  1782,  urging  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church  on  a  Provisional  basis ;  the  noblest 
body  of  men  with  whom  he  co-operated,  were  the  grand 
Revolutionary  Statesmen  and  Soldiers  of  those  Primary 
Conventions.  On  this  pre-eminent  period  of  his  life, 
he  has  not  seen  fit  to  dwell.  Through  want  of  wisdom 
and  consistency,  through  a  marvelous  weakness  of  judg- 
ment and  foresight  at  this  critical  juncture,  he  allowed 
a  departure  from  the  sound,  Protestant,  Republican 
principles  of  the  Primary  Conventions. 

There  has  never  been  exhibited  in  all  history  a  more 
remarkable  ecclesiastical  somerset  than  the  substitution 
of  the  Seabury  Constitution  and  Prayer  Book,  for  that  of 
Jay  and  Duane,  Peters,  Page,  and  Pinckney.  To  this 
Prayer  Book  and  Constitution,  Bishop  White  and  Dr. 
William  Smith  had  given  their  hearty,  public  concur- 
rence. They  had  been  foremost  in  their  construction* 
The  Preface  to  the  Prayer  Book,  prepared  by  Dri. 


iflC 


NOTES. 


ISmith  and  tlioroucrlily  endorsed  by  Bishop  White,  had 
plainly  and  fully  stated  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  had  based  its  Reforms  and  Reunion  on  the 
plan  and  principles  of  William  III.  and  his  bishops,  as 
set  forth  in  the  Bex'iew  of  1689.  Bishop  White  writes 
to  Dr.  Smith,  February  10,  1786 :  "I  express  my  ap- 
probation of  your  Preface  *  *  *.  I  like  it  both  in  plan 
and  execution."  Dr.  Smith  writes  to  Bishop  White, 
April  9,  1786:  "In  the  Scot's  and  Edward  Ylth 
Liturgy,  the  prayer  was  exceptionable,  and  leaning 
much  to  transubstantiation."  See  Hawks'  and  Perry's 
Reprint  of  Journal .  Yet  these  clergy  now  surrendered  to 
Bishop  Seabury,  who  represented  the  party  of  James 
II.,  and  while  they  carefully  rejected  this  prayer  from 
the  Book  of  1785,  they  allowed  it  entrance  in  the  Book 
of  1789,  where  it  has  remained  with  other  erroneous  doc- 
trines thus  incorporated,  to  deface  and  corrupt  the 
Church;  to  produce  sorrow,  contention,  and  alienation, 
and  finally  ecclesiastical  separation,  among  biethren  of 
the  same  fold. 

Seabury  and  the  New  England  Clergy  notoriously 
represented  the  Non-juring  party  of  James  II.;  White, 
Provoost  and  Griffith,  the  Reforming  Bishops  of  Wil- 
liam III.  The  doctrines  of  the  latter  are  in  the  Book 
of  1785  and  in  that  of  1874;  the  doctrines  of  the  former 
in  that  of  1789,  the  present  Protestant  Episcopal  Book. 
These  two  antagonistic  principles  are  again  in  conflict. 

KON-JITRORS,    BARRIERS   TO  REFORM  AND  FREEDOM 
IN  ENGLAND  AND  AMERICA. 

And  like  as  the  salutary  reforms  of  the  Bishops  of 
William  III.  were  rendered  nugatory  largely  on  ac- 
count of  the  dread  entertained  of  the  successful  machi- 
nations of  the  Non-Jurors,  in  case  the  English  Liturgy 
had  been  changed;  so  in  like  manner  were  White  and 
Smith  largely  influenced  in  their  surrender  to  Seabury 
by  the  threat  that  if  he  was  not  received  on  his  own 
terms,  Jarvis,  of  Connecticut,  already  selected,  with 
Parker,  of  Boston,  would  be  sent  to  Scotland  for  Con- 
secration. Thus  another  and  similar  schism  would  result 
by  the  action  of  the  American  Non-Juroi-s.  The  fear  of 
such  consequences  triumphed  over  the  demands  of  con- 
sistency of  doctrme  and  action,  of  adhesion  to  their 
principles,  enunciated  distinctly  in  the  Constitution 
-and  Prayer  Book  of  1785.  antl  by  Bishop  White  most 


NOTES. 


99 


forcibly  in  his  carefully  prepared  Tract  on  a  Provisional 
Episcopacy,  published  December,  1782. 

THE  PREFACE  OF  1789  ENDORSES  THAT  OF  1785. 

The  most  marvelously  inconsistent  feature  of  this 
strange  transaction,  perhaps,  is  the  declaration  in 
the  Preface  of  the  Book  of  1789,  written  by  Bishop 
White,  as  follows :  "  A  commission  for  a  Review  was 
issued  in  the  year  1689,  but  this  great  and  good  work 
miscarried  at  that  time."  Thus,  notwithstanding  this 
good  Bishop  had  publicly  revised  the  Book  of  1785, 
on  the  plan  of  that  "great  and  good  work,"  and  then 
abandoned  it  for  the  work  of  its  avowed  enemies,  he 
and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  have  in  the  words 
quoted  from  their  authorized  Preface,  endorsed  the 
first  Book,  that  of  1785,  and  consequently  the  Book  of 
1874,  that  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  This  mem- 
orable display  of  a  want  of  consistency  in  doctrine  and 
action,  this  want  of  fidelity  to  Scriptural  Truth,  this 
fear  of  threats  of  ecclesiastical  division,  as  were  dis- 
played in  the  reactionary  and  humiliating  measures  of 
1789,  produced  the  evil  results  which  constrained 
Bishop  Cummins  to  withdraw  from  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Communion,  and  to  establish  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church  on  the  avowed  basis  of  the  doctrines 
and  principles  of  the  loyal  Episcopalians  of  the  American 
Revolution,  identical  with  those  of  William  III. 

INHERENT  EVILS  IN  THE  HIGH  CHURCH  SACERDOTAL 

SYSTEM. 

Devotion  to  uniformity,  to  the  semblance  of  unity,  a 
hollow  union,  have  ever  been  the  bane  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  The  evil  is  inherent  in  a  system  of 
Sacerdotalism,  and  of  exclusive  Divine  right,  with 
mysterious,  undefined  prerogatives.  The  possession  of 
a  more  than  ordinarily  level  head,  and  a  heart  filled 
with  an  uncommon  degree  of  humility  and  love,  are 
required  to  make  an  Episcopate  a  success  under  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Regimen.  Hence  the  frequent 
failures  even  among  those  who  have  excelled  as  Pres- 
byters. And  this  evil  is  often  aggravated  by  the  party 
spirit  and  selfish  schemes  which  accompany  Episcopal 
elections,  when  men  are  chosen  not  for  superior  modera- 
tion, learning  and  sanctity,  but  for  devotion  to  particular 
party  measures,  and  to  some  powerful  ecclesiastical 


NOTES. 


clique.  But  the  Episcopal  system  of  that  Communion  is 
not  that  of  Scripture  nor  of  the  Primitive  Church .  Hence 
its  comparative  failure,  and  its  loss  of  spiritual  power 
and  influence.  "^ 

A  GRAND  OPPORTUNITY  NEEDLESSLY  LOST. 

If  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  had  been  wisely 
permitted  to  remain  on  the  Protestant,  Free,  Revolu- 
tionary basis,  as  primarily  arranged  by  its  grand 
founders,  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  its  becoming; 
with  a  thoroughly  purified  Liturgy,  and  a  reduced  and 
safely  modified  Episcopacy,  and  such  a  band  of  pre- 
eminent laymen.  Christian  statesmen  and  heroes; 
Washington  and  Jay,  Duane  and  Rutherford,  the 
Morris's  and  the  Livingstons;  Duer,  Willett  and  King, 
Peters  and  Shippen,  the  Lees,  the  Nicholases,  the  Nel- 
sons, the  Marshalls  and  the  Randolphs;  Page  and 
Griffin,  Pinckney  and  Rutledge;  .with  clergymen  like 
Provoost  and  White,  William  and  Robert  Smith, 
Wharton  and  Pettigrew,  Griffith  and  Madison;  the 
foremost  ecclesiastical  power  in  the  land.  It  lost  its 
opportunity,  and  with  that  opportunity  its  crown. 
This  the  Methodist  Communion  has  taken,  by  the  su- 
perlative wisdom  of  its  leaders,  its  devotion  to  a  pure 
and  living  Gospel,  its  Christian  energy  and  patriotism. 
The  poor  and  despised  sect,  without  prestige,  without 
wealth,  without  men  of  Revolutionary  renown,  but 
blessed  of  God  for  fidelity  to  truth  and  principle  and 
country,  has  become  the  first  in  the  land.  Its  older, 
more  powerful,  more  famous  and  more  arrogant  sister 
has  taken  the  position  of  seventh  among  the  Churches. 
Tradition  substituted  for  Scripture,  the  Letter  for  the 
Spirit,  has  brought  this  to  pass.  "Not  by  power,  nor 
by  might,  but  by  My  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord." 

THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  TRUTH  APPROACHING. 

The  present  Era  is  propitious  for  the  restoration  and 
advancement  of  sound.  Scriptural,  and  timely  American 
principles.  Centennial  celebrations  are  calling  public 
attention  to  the  startling  but  slightly  known  facts 
pertaining  to  the  history  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  that  memorable  period. 

Those  who  will  study  with  candor  and  attention  the 
subject  handled  in  these  notes,  will  learn  that  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church  alone  can   rightfully   and 


NOTES. 


101 


legitimately  commemorate  the  work  of  these  Episcopal 
Revolutionary  Fathers;  for  this  Church  alone  has 
inherited  their  principles,  and  represents  their  noble. 
Scriptural  undertaking.  While  the  Constitution  and 
Prayer  Book  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  in 
direct  and  irreconcilable  antagonism  to  the  published 
principles,  and  to  the  grand  work  of  those  great  Chris- 
tian Statesmen;  those  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church  are  thoroughly  identical,  being  expressly  based 
on  the  Reform  and  Revision  of  the  Conventions  of 
1785  and  1786;  made  consistent  with  Scripture;  with 
the  Primitive  Church;  with  the  Reforming  work  of 
William  III.;  with  the  principles  of  the  American 
Revolution. 

We  leave  this  intensely  interestmg  subject  in  confi- 
dent assurance,  that  with  the  growth  of  Light  and 
Scriptural  Truth  among  Episcopalians  in  this  free 
land,  there  will  be  an  ultimate  triumph  to  the  true 
Protestant  Episcopacy,  as  inherited  from  our  venerated 
Christian  Fathers  of  the  American  Revolution. 

This  has  been  restored  and  re-affirmed  in  the  Consti- 
tution and  Prayer  Book  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Cliurch. 

The  hope  of  the  Martyred  Reformers  of  Edward  VI., 
of  the  wise  and  charitable  Commissioners  of  William 
III.;  of  our  patriotic  Episcopal  Pioneers;  of  so  many 
departed  defenders  of  Evangelical  Truth ;  will,  under 
God,  be  realized  in  the  sure  and  stable  progress  of  this 
Primitive,  Protestant,  Scriptural,  American  Commu- 
nion. 


O,  Almighty  God,  who  hast  built  thy  Church  upon 
the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  tlie  head  Corner  Stone ;  Grant  us 
so  to  be  joined  together  in  unity  of  spirit  by  their  doc- 
trine, that  we  may  be  made  a  holy  temple  acceptable 
unto  thee ;  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.    Amen. 


102 


NOTES. 


P.  S.— Since  tlie  preparation  of  these  notes  an  article 
appeared  in  the  Episcopal  Becorder,  from  the  pen  of 
Kev.  Dr.  E.  D.  Neill,  the  Historian  of  Minnesota,  from 
which  a  highly  interesting  extract  connected  with  our 
subject  is  given. 

"  A  few  years  ago  there  was  published  for  the  first 
time,  a  remarkable  letter  in  the  New  York  Churchman, 
written  on  November  8, 1788,  to  Abemethy,  one  of  the 
Bishops  of  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church,  which  is  re- 
called at  this  time.    Seabury  writes : 

'  Bishop  White,  of  Philadelphia,  seems  disposed  to 
an  ecclesiastical  union,  but  will  take  no  action  or 
leading  part  to  bring  it  about.  He  will  ask  nothing, 
and  Bishop  Provoost  seems  so  elevated  with  the  honor 
of  an  English  consecration,  that  he  affects  to  doubt  the 
validity  of  mine.  This  may  oblige  me  to  establish  the 
Scotch  Succession  from  the  re-organization  of  Charles 
the  Second  to  what  is  called  the  Kevolution.  How 
this  is  best  to  be  done,  you  can  judge  better  than  I 
can.' 

"  How  humiliating  to  see  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ 
laying  stress  on  a  tactual  and  Apostolical  Succession 
which  after  being  set  apart  as  a  Bishop,  he  feels  at  a 
loss  to  prove." 


EEVISION  NECESSARY.     OPINION  OP  THE  BISHOPS! 


"  The  Church  should  not  be  so  bound  up,  as  tliat  uj)on  just  and  further 
evidence  she  may  not  revise  that  which  in  any  case  hath  slipped  her." 

ARCIIBLSHOP  LAUD. 

"  It  lias  never  gone  well  with  the  Church  of  Christ  since  men  have  been  so 
narrow-minded  as  to  mix  the  controversies  of  faitli  with  their  public  tbrms  of 
worship,  and  have  made  their  Litanies,  instead  of  being  olHces  of  devotion  to 
God,  become  tests  and  censures  of  the  opinions  of  their  brethi-en." 

ARC  IIBLSllOP  AVAKE. 

'^  Nothing  was  anciently  more  usual  with  the  Churches  of  God,  tlian,  when 
times  re(piired  it,  to  change  the  laws  made  by  themselves,  to  abrogate  old  ones 
and  substitute  others."  BLSIIOi*  BEVKKIDGP:. 

"  A\  hile  tlie  internal  decency  and  soU^mnity  of  worsliip  is  secured,  no  wise 
and  good  man  will  think  nmch  to  chauge  a  clinng('n])le  ceremony.  And  let  us 
heartily  pray  to  God  tliat  there  may  be  this  good  and  peaceable  disposition  of 
mind  in  all  towards  a  happy  union."  "         BISHOP  SIIEHLOCav. 

''  Surely  liis  religion  is  in  vain  wlio  would  abandon  the  substance  for  want  of 
the  ceremonies.  Surely  he  hatli  a  very  ignoraiil  mind,  wli(»  hath  not  learnt 
that  obedience  is  better  than  sacrilice  and  wliole  burnt  otferings  ;  and  surelv  a 
very  uncharitabh'  mind,  that  would  not  leave  ninety  and  nine  unnecessary 
ceremonies,  to  bring  one  siniul  strayed  sheep  into  theVono-rfiration." 

BlsiioP  CROFT. 

'*  I  wish  something  were  done  to  convince^  the  world  that  the  clergy  of  the 
Churcli  are  not  averse  to  a  reformation  of  some  jiarts  of  her  public  service, 
siu(M>  otherwise  they  may  give  offence  by  their  obstinacy  and  seeming  infalli- 
bility, and  if  a  storm  should  arise,  may  run  a  riskof  ha^ing  the  tree  torn  uj)  by 
the  roots,  which  they  miglit  have  saved  by  a  litth'  jn-uninir." 

BLSHOP  CLAYTON.    : 

"  The  Church  of  England,  both  in  the  preface  to  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  in  the  Articles  of  her  Confession,  and  in  certain  j)assages  in  the 
Homilies,  occasionally  hath,  in  as  plain  and  express  terms  as  can  be  desired, 
declared  to  the  world  that  ;iny  of  her  orders  and  constitutions  maybe  retained, 
abolislied  or  altered  from  time  to  time,  and  at  all  times,  as  the  governors  for 
the  time  being  shall  judge  to  serve  best  unto  edification." 

BISHOP  SANDERSON. 

*'  The  prejudices  in  these  Eastern  States  against  forms  of  prayer,  and  the 
objections  so  generally  made  to  some  parts  of  ours  particularly,  and  to  the 
length  of  our  morning  service,  are  powerful  obstacles  to  our  increase.  .  .  . 
When  there  shall  havv^  been  a  judicious  revision  of  our  liturgy,  in  the  manner 
wisely  recommended  by  our  venerable  brother.  Bishop  White,  deceased,  I 
dikubt  not  but  our  churches  will  more  rapidly  increase." 

BISHOP  GRLSWOLD. 


] 


*'  One  in  heart,  in  Spirit,  and  in  faith  with  our  fathers,  who 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  existence  of  this  nation  sought  to 
mold  and  fashion  the  ecclesiastical  Polity  which  they  had  in- 
herited from  the  Reformed  Church  of  England,  by  a  judicious 
and  thorough  revision  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  we 
return  to  iheir  position  and  claim  to  be  the  old  and  true  Pro- 
testant Episcopalians  of  the  days  immediately  succeding  the 
American  Revolution.  And  through  these,  our  ancestors,  we 
claim  an  unbroken  historical  connection  through  the  Church 
of  England,  with  the  Church  of  Christ,  from  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian era." 

Bi'i/toj>  (Uniiinins^  Address  at  the  First  General  Council 
of  the    Reformed  Ej)iscopal   Church. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERS 


0026056984 


\ 


--1 


I 


^ 

LU 

c^ 

h- 

>0 

►- 

>o 

¥^ 

0* 

QL 

<0 

3P 

nO 

z' 

o 

O 

ro 

^•^ 

LU 

r- 

o 

►- 

• 

a 

f^ 

ro 

< 

m 

i-H 

X 

0* 

o 

o 

■KITTLE  DO  NOl 
PH9T0C0P'< 


PF^* 


"One  in  lieart,  in  8|»irit.  and  in  laitli  vvitli  our  lathers,  who 
at  thf'  verv  beu'inniiiii;  of  i\u^  existence  of  thi>  nation  souf^rht  l  « 
nioM  anil  ta>liiou  tlu^  tM-f!('si;'-ti<'al  Polilv  wliieh  tliev  had  in- 
hented  from  th^-  llr-fornif'd  ('liurchof  Enu-|;uid,  \>v  a  iudicir)U- 
and  tliorougli  revision  of  thu  Book  ot  <'<':innnn  Pj-nvcr,  \v<' 
roturn  to  i  heir  position  and  chiini  to  be  tiir  old  and  true  I'ro- 
t^^-tuii  ly:--o|>alian>  of  the  days  immediately  -ricrrdinii;  th'- 
Anierii-an  R.'Vohuion.  And  i!irou<_-li  ihi'se,  our  aiirt  slors,  w^- 
'■;  Mm  an  !inl'i"ki'n  historical  connes-tion  throudi  tiic  Chun  .. 
of  Kntrland,  with  thf  Churcli  u\  (."hrisi,  from  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian i-ra.  ' 

'J   tin    Ut'jin'iite*!   Epn>rit^iul   i  'hi' I'll'. 


^^^1 

# 


r 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0026056984 


^ 

uJ 

o 

»— 

^ 

H- 

o 

*■— 

0* 

UL 

<i 

IT 

<i 

-^ 

o 

3 

X 

ro 

,M 

;j 

f^ 

o 

k— 

• 

a 

f^ 

.n 

<; 

:<\ 

mmi 

X 

^ 

o 

o 

.«.■«! 


L.*»,^ 


